Full text of "Studies in John the Scot (Erigena): A Philosopher of the Dark Ages"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http : //books . google . com/

■

^"^CTOXiC-f • ' " '. '

^B • .^^^

^^H M^^^^nHk

m IHB

^^^^^^■1 ^^^^^^^''^^tH^B^^w^l^^^r

HI ^1^^^

^^M ^arbartf Collrge S^tbrarg

^^H FROM THE

SUBSCRIPTION FUND

, BEGUN IN 185S

'50 Tlcrv. l^tt-ti,

1 ■

1^ i^^

STUDIES

JOHN THE SCOT

Oxfot5

HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

STUDIES

JOHN THE SCOT

(ERIGENA)

A PHILOSOPHER OF THE DARK AGES

ALICE gARDNER

LECTURER AND ASSOOATB OF KBWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
AXn-B(» OF 'JULIAN TH£ PHILOSOPHER,' 'SYNESIUS OF CYRENE/ ETC.

' Lax in tenebris lacet, et tenebrae earn non coinprehenderunt'

London
HENRY FROWDE

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.C.

NEW YORK : 91 & 93, FIFTH AVENUE

1900

->..

U^CrVV I^vv^cL

L. A. H.

*HOC OPUS . . . TIBI ... IN STUDIIS SAPIENTIAE
COOPER ATORI . . . OFFERO ET COMMITTO. NaM ET

tuis exhortationibus est inchoatum, tuaque
solertia, quoquo modo sit, ad finem usque
perductum.'

John the Scot to Bishop Wulfad

{De Divisione Naturae v, 40).

PREFACE

ERRATUM.

P. 8, 1, 7 from foot f /or sacerdotalists read anti-sacerdotalists.
Gardfier's John the Scot.
uxD ixatuxx:aotrk.x5 x^uus i/i uuiiapp^ icpuuai/xuii. xxu

the same time I have noticed how all students
of philosophy, who have made even a slight ac-
quaintance with him, have felt the impression of
a deep thinker and an original character. And
some indications (notably the interest excited in
the Bampton Lectures for last year on ' Christian
Mysticism ') have led me to think that a good
many English people feel, at the present moment,

NOV 30 IPC

■N

• - > A.

PREFACE

My apology \n publishing these little studies
of a mediaeva,! and apparently remote philosopher
may be given in a few words. Since I began to
work at iJ:iis subject I have been repeatedly struck
by the want of familiarity on the part of the read-
ing public with the very name of John the Scot,
whom many educated people still confuse with
hie namesake Duns of unhappy reputation. At
the same time I have noticed how all students
of philoaophy, who have made even a slight ac-
quaintance with him, have felt the impression of
a deep thinker and an original character. And
some indications (notably the interest excited in
the Bampton Lectures for last year on 'Christian
Mysticism ') have led me to think that a good
many English people feel, at the present moment,

Preface

strongly drawn towards those developments of
religious thought of which, in Western Europe,
my philosopher is one of the earliest exponents,
and that if only they obtained some insight into
his mind and feelings, they would hail him as
a fellow searcher after truth, rather than pass
him by as a musty schoolman.

I probably do not stand alone in having been
first attracted to the person and attitude of
Scotua by the charming sketch given in Guizot's
CivUimtion en France. The more thorough works
on his philosophy, chiefly in German, ai'e men-
tioned in my footnotes. The edition of Scotus
to which I refer is that of Floss in the Pairologia
of Migne.

This work does not purport to he a complete
account of the Scottian philosophy. Some im-
poi-tant branches have been but incidentally
touched upon J or perhaps omitted altogether. My
object has been to represent as widely as I could
some aspects of that philosophy in relation
to the thought of those times — aspects which
had struck me as peculiarly interesting, and which
therefore seemed to me likely to interest others.

Preface

Vll

At the same time I hope that I have pointed out
the chief authorities and guides necessary for any
students who deaire to give their attention to
other topic8 than those herein treated.

In the course of my work I have met with
much encouragement and many helpful suggestionB
from colleagues and friends. From my brother.
Professor Percy Gardner, I have received help in
the correction of the proofs. As, however, most
of the assistance I have received has been of a
general and informal character, my thanks must
alflo be expressed generally, though not wanting
in sincerity.

If I have seemed, in the eyes of experts in
philosophy and theology, to trespass on wide and
dangerous fields, I may plead in excuse that to
a certain extent every conscious thinker, how-
ever slight his powei-s and however imperfect hia
training, must be, in a sense, both philosopher
and theologian. And I may add that an amateur
may be pardoned for trying a piece of work which,
in this country at least, has not already heeu
accomplished by an expert. For better and for
worse, this little book has been a labour of love,

viii Preface

and I send it forth with no expectation that it
will prove of value to the learned, but with a keen
hope that it may attract, stimulate and encourage
some spirits akin to that of Scotus himself. If
I merit thanks in any quai-ter, it will be from
those who can only find present life tolerable if
lived in friendship with the past.

ALICE GARDNER.

NSWNHAM Ck)LLE6E, CAMBRIDGE.

March 1900.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

PACK

The Franco-Roman, the Greek, and the
Irishman 1-23

Scotns, the Irishman, introducmg DionyBras Areopagitica,
the Greek, to Charies the Bald, the Eranco-Boman, i. Char-
acter and historical position of Charles, 3. Works of
Dionysius and traditions respecting him, 5. John the Scot :
facts and fictions of his Ufe, 1 1. His character as mediator
between East and West, 15. Three critical periods in
Christian thought, 21.

CHAPTER 11.
The Unknown God 24-45

Theological tone of Scotns and of his times, 24. Semitic
and Hellenic ideas of the Divine, 27. Dionysins on the
Transcendent God, 28. Scotus considers the categories
inapplicable to God, 31. Subjective character of his theo-
logy, 32. Nature of revelation, 33. Creation, 37. Four-
fold division of nature, 40. Rejection of Pantheism, 43.
Acceptance of Christian doctrines in a mystic sense, 43.

Contents

CHAPTER HI.

PAGE

The Pbedestinabian Contbovebsy . . 46-72

Scotus not naturally controversial, 46. Beginning of dis-
putes on Dual Predestination, 49. Hincmar of Eheims, 49.
Questions involved in that of Predestination, 50. Character
of mediaeval controversy, 53. Three conflicting views, 54.
Be^hinings of Gottschalk, 55. Babanus Maurus and the
Councils of Metz and Chiersey, 58. Confessions, sufferings
and death of Gottschalk, 61. Appeal to Scotus, 63. His
treatise Be IHvina Praedeftlnatione, 64. Opposed by Pru-
deutius and Kemigius, 67. New articles of Chiersey and
of Valence, 69. Bearing of questions on that of ecclesi-
astical authority, 70.

CHAPTER IV.

Symbolism and Sacbament. Pabt taken by
Scotus in the Euchabistic Contbovebsy . 73-96

Relation of philosophy to theology, 73. Connexion of
Eucharistic controversy ^th that on Predestination, 74.
Ideas of Scotus on sacraments and symbols, 76. Interpre-
tations of ritual and myth by Hellenes and Christians, 77.
Dionysius on the Communion, 81. Scotus on sacramental
character of all nature and of Christian ritual, 83. Early
beliefs as to change in the consecrated elements, 85. Treatise
of RadbertuB, 85. Rabanus and Ratramnns oppose, 87.
Lanfranc and Berengarius, 89. Did Scotus write a book
on the subject ? — three theories, 91. Sacramental views of
Scotus above those of either party, 93.

Contents

ScoTUS AS Optimist .

CHAPTER V.

97-n4

Questiou of optimSam aiid eriJ more proper tli&ii the
*>thers to the sjstem of Scot us, 97; Evil only Jipparenti 99.
Theory of cycUe revolutions, ioo. Intellectual and moral
ilifBuultiea, loi. Final return of the Jien&ible world into
God J 105. Mis interpretation of the Fall of Mnii, 107.
The Incarnation of the Logos, 1 09. Nature of final punish-
ment, 109. Stepij towards tlie oonsumi nation, 112. Scotiem
a.nd N ITT anil J 113.

CHAPTER VI.
^SClOTtra AS SUBJECTIYE iDEAI-iaT

Bcotns and modern tlunlters, 115. DiiM;uision
eKtiitent and non -existent, with theory of hm^^ ii8»
Matter not conceived apart from mind, 1 3 1 . The world aa
i^xiflting in and for conBuiousnesB on]y, 123. Time and
i<pftce as menti^l oonditions, J3+, Identification of thought
and belngj I36. The I>ivine as realized in htiman uoii-
aftieusneaa, 12S, Relation of Scotua to Nominalists and
HealiiitB, J 30.

115-133

i to

CHAPTER VI L

THK IXFLUEKCI: OF SCOTUa. CONCLUSIOK

133-145

Influence of Scotuia not confined to that of hia writinj^a,
J35» Hia prinoiplea and those of Tauler and the Frtmah
(httesf J 35. The Theoh^ia QettnamcQj 136. Hia
followers perseouted ad heretics; Araalric of Bfene, 1 36.
David of Dinant, 13S, Bull of Honoriui HI against Ih
Ditmone Naturae, 139. It isj put on the Index, 14a.
Contrasta between Sootusa and moat of liia contemporaries,
341, Nut modern beeauae not historical ,143. H is etUi cs ,
144. H]» merit aM an independent thinker^ 145.

Whateyer years we may choose to indicate the
beginuiDg and the end of the Dark Agesj that
period imist include the date, just about thc^ middle
of the ninth century of our era^ in which Cbarlea
the Bald, King of the Franks, grandeon of the ■
great restorer of the Roman Empire, himself to
be crowned Emperor before his death, gave to '
John the Scot, his distinguished guest from Ireland, f
the taak of translating from Greek into Latin the
works of the mystic Nco-Platonie tbeologianj who
goes by the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

That an Lishman should take the Greek by
the hand and lead him into the presence of the

Shidies in John the Scot

Frank who ruled over great part of the Western
Empirej seems a by no means incongruous fact
to those who have studied the history of those
times. To reali;se its significancsj let us glance
for a moment at each of the persons or types that
figure in the scene before us.

Charles the Bald is not a noble and commanding
figtu'e in mediaeval biatory. Trained, after his
over-indulged boyhood ^ in the school of adversity,
he did not prove himself capable of profiting by
its lessons. He was the youngest child, by the
clever Suabian lady Judith, of the feeble Emperor,
Lewis the Pious, Even before his father's death,
his brothers had risen in revolt against his mother's
influence and tlieir father's partiality for the child
of his old age. After the death of Lewis in 840,
we have, as frequently in early Frankish history,
a series of fratricidal wars, broken up by in.'secure
treaties and inexplicable changes of side. The
partition treaty made at Verdun in 843 is some-
times taken as a landmark m history^ because by
it the territory which, generally speaking, makes
up modem France was made into a separate
kingdom for Charles, and the oath by which the
treaty was confirmed gives us what is taken to be
the earhest specimen of the French language. But
if Charles might, in a sense, be regarded as the first
King of France, and though he had one notable
French characteristic — an appreciation of the ad-
vantages and of the great possibilities of the city

Introductory

of Paris ^ — he neither demoted himself to the task
of defending his Western realm, nor confined his
ambition within its borders. As unready as our
own Ethelred, he repeatedly bribed the Vikings —
vainly as the sequel showed — to retire from the
coasts of Gaul, or to turn their arms one against
another. He ayailed himself of deaths and quarrels
among brothers and nephews to extend his territory
to the north, and even^ shortly before the close of
his life, to obtain the imperial crown in Home,
His life and death were inglorious and ineffectualj
unmarked by great achievements even of a transi-
tory nature. Yet in the history of culture he
bears another character^ and continues the best
traditions of his house.

However much we may allow for the partiality
of panegjTistSj the fact that the panegyrists were
there proves that there was a patron. And the
patronage of learning undertaken by the Caro-
lingians waSj after allj more deserving of laudation
than that of Maecenas or of the Medici, in that it
was directed not to foster and direct an active
literary movement, but rather to strengthen a
feeble cause in the dire struggle for existence. It
has often been told ^ how Charlemagne laboured no
' less assiduously for the revival of education than

' Adwrding to on© (not undoubted) copy of the letter of
NioolftB I to Cbarlea tlie Bald concerning Sootufl^ the loiter waa
head of the School (Stud J am) in Paria,

* Especially by Mullmgefj Sehooh ofChiides tJte Great j Bad by
GuUotj HuiQife dB ta CmHmtim en France.

Studies in John the Scot

for the restoration of order; how, for him, the
championship of Christendom involved the ex-
tended away of Chriatian and Roman ideas no less
than of the imperial arms* His court was a centre
of education, such as some of the greater monasteries
were to bBcome in later days, till they in turn were
superseded in this function by the universities.
The story of how the great Emperor commended
the boys of humble birth who had made progress
in good learnings and sternly reproached the young
Bobles who neglected such pursuits, is too hackneyed
to be repeated here. The education of women seems
to have been a part of Charlemagne*s idea of civi-
lization, or so we should judge from the proficiency
in learning attributed to his daughters. If, during
the reign of his successor, Lewis the Pious, there
was a temporary decline, which drew a despondent
wd.1 from some disappointed scholars, such retro-
gression seems to have been due rather to the
general disorderhness of the times than to any
wilful neglect on the part of the Emperor- Of
Charles the Bald it may be safely aaserted that he
followed in the steps of his grandfather, who had
summoned Alcuin to his court, in extending hospi*
taUty to learned men. More than this, he must
have had some notion of the particular lines in
which his scholarly guests excelled, and some in-
tellectual sympathy with them and with their
ideas, or he would hardly have taken upon himself ^
to impose so suitable a task on John the Scotj oi

Introductory

have appreciated the dedication of the work which
he had suggested*

But what was that worki If we tum to the
Greek philosopher in our group, be seems to be
less a man of flesh and blood than a type. Yet
like many writers whose personality has been
veiled in obscurity, be has very distinctive features,
and has appealed forcibly to the heai-ts and minds
of many men through succesaive generations-

The works of Dionysius the Areopagite were
now being for the first time presented to the
Western world. About a century before^ a copy of
them had been given by Pope Paul I to Charles's
great-grandfather Pipin* More lately, the Eastern
Emperor, Michael Balbus, had given a copy to
Lewis the Pious^ and an aboiiive attempt to trans-
late them had been made by Abbot Hildwin of
St. Denis ^* But on the present occasion no pope
takes any part ia the transaction. Eelationa were
much strained between the Eastern and the Western
ChurcheSj the burning question as to the relations
of papacy to patriarchate helping to accontuate the
distinctions in doctrine which were due to deep-
lying differences in the character and modes of
thought of Eastern and Western minds. After the
work was done, Pope Nicolas I^ wrote to com-

' ChriBtlieb, J oh. Scot. ^., p. a6t A life of DioDyeias with
a ra-ther inadequate account of hia vvritimp, by Hiidwm, is published
in the Fatrologia of Migne, toL cvi,

* See his letter in FIoesb'b editioii of /oA» the Scotj pp, I03|, loaG.

6 Studies in John the Scot

plain to Charles the Bald that a copy had not been
sent for his approval. It was not^ of course, that
he had any suapicions aa to Diooysius himself, but
the reputation of the translator had become, as we
shall Bee, Y^vy dubious. Thus in the introduction
of the Greek to the Teuton^ the representative of
the Eoman hierarchy plays the part of a critical
outsider

But let us turn to the worlisof DionysiuSj which,
as has been implied, interest us here as being one
of the chief channeLg by which the ideas and prin-
ciples of Greek, and especially of Neo-Platonic
philosophy, were conveyed into the stream of
Western civilization, though they never became
strong enough to dominate its current.

It roay not be superfluous to devote a few words
to the traditions concerning Dionysius the Ai-eopa-
gitOj who is said, in the Acta of the Apostles
(svii. 34), to have followed St. Paul after the
address on Mars' HilL He bad already, so runs
the story, been prepared to receive the Gospel by
having been deeply impressed on beholding the
supernatural eclipse on the day of the Passion,
when ^ it was about the sixth hour ; and there was
darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.'
He was at that time in the city of HeliopoliSj and
sought enlightenment from a certain Hierotheus,
quoted as his master more than once in the
writings. He was made Bishop of Athens by
St, Paulj but consorted also with the other Apostles^

Introductory

and was with them immediately after the death of
the Virgin Mary. Subsequently htj came to PariH,
and was martyred there with two companions.
This story was believed by John the Scot, who
narrates it in the preface to his translation, but
for us it seems hardly worth refutation. The .
chronological difficulties in the way of IdeiitifyiDg |
the original Dionyaiua with St. Denys of Paris '
were discovered by the critical mind of Abelard in
the twelfth century, and brought down upon him
even more wrath than did bis deviations from
Church doctrine in some really important matters. '
But the tone of the wiitings themselves is decisive
against the old tradition. The writer, whoever he
may have beenj was steeped in Neo-Platonism,
and may be said to have adapted the Johannine
theology and certain of the more mystic elements
in the teaching of St, Paul to an essentially Greek
system of religion and cosmologyj rather than to
have merely borrowed certain Greek ideas to eluci-
date the doctrine of the Apostles, The system of
Church organization which they describe is far too
highly developed for the age to which they purport
to belong. Then again, we find in them quotations
from Ignatius and Clement — a patent anachronism
which the acuteness of biassed commentators has
sought to clear away. Furthermore, if they had
been written in tho first century, they would have
furnished arms for many furious controversies in
succeeding dajs ; whereas we do not anywhere find

s Studies in John ike Scot

them quoted before 533 a.d. The question of their
actual provenance falls beyond our present scope*
Vacherot, the learned and delightful historian of
the School of Alexandria, and the illustrious
Ferdinand Baur would seek for theii' origin in
Athens, because of the affinity shown in them for
the doctrines of the Athenian Neo-Platonist Ptoclus,
Dr* Westcott^ thinks that they came from Syria,
where the Monophysite heresy (that which denies
the double nature in Christ) took ita rise. Certainly
it was a Monophysite sect that first appealed to
their authority, though they were early recognized
as orthodox both in the East and in the West.
This recognition is at first sight rather puzzling to
those who eoDsider not only their positive side —
theii' essentially Hellenic character — -but also theii*
negative or privative aspect — the compamtively
slight stress laid on those dogmas which in Western
Europe have always been regarded as the chief
pillars of the Christian religioa In the opinion of
Baur, they derived part of the credit given to them
from the support they lent to the hierai^chieal
order, which needed, against the attacks ^Sf^acer-
dotalists, the arguments to be drawn from the
inner meaning given to the hierarchy in the sym-
bolic mysticism of the Areopagite. Be this as it
may, it is an important fact that these writings
were regarded in the Church as of great and
ancient authority ; though, as we shall see, as soon
' See an inteireatmg paper In th« Ctiniemporartf Met^ien^ Sot 1867.

Introductory

as any thinker, even were he far more Christian in
tone than the pseudo-Dionyaius himself, applied
their principles to the solution of the theological
questions which agitated the Western world, he
was treated as one who had brought strange fire to
burn on the sacred altar.

The works of the pseud o-Dionysius which John
the Scot translated comprise almost all that have
come down to us: the treatises on the Cdestiat
Hierarchy, the Ecclesmsticcd Hiermxhy^ the Divine
Samm, and the Mystical Theology^ besides a number
of letters to notable persons — Titus, Polycarp, and
others^the forgery of which is more palpable than
that of the dissertations. The translation is not of
a high order, but there is evident a most painful
effort to be accurate. Where, as often happens, the
text is coiTupt, the translator gives the literal
equivalent of the words, nobly indifferent to the
nonsense produced in his version \ This method
has the advantage of enabling critics to discover in
some cases the actual words which have suffered
so grotesque a travesty.

Besides his translations, John wrote a very
lengthy commentary on some of the Dionysian
writings, which does not seem to contain much new
matter for those who have read the larger original
works of Scotus himself. ^

^ A good insianoe uf this <3omea near the end qf Epktle VIII,
where wfli^f had been written far tow^ and John renden %
* poer , . .me *

Studies in John the Scot

The treatise on the Cdestial Hierarchy is a
curious combination of the Neo-Platonic doctrine
of a series of divine emanations with the later
Jewish teaching about aBgek. Since the writer
holds that the passively contemplated is superior
to the contemplative, and this again to the active,
although every member of the hierai^chy receives
from those above it and imparts to those below,
he can make use both of the Neo-Platonic terms
ifor}Toi and mipoif and of the names of the three
triads which were becoming familiar to Christian
minds : Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim ; Dominions,
Virtues, Powers ^ Principalities, Archangels, Angels.
In the Eccledadical Hiefn^archy he endeavourn to
show how the institutions of the Church are
modelled on those of the heavens* The bearing
of these treatises on the theological and sacra-
mentel system of the Church as it was at the time
when John the Scot made his translation, is an
interesting study which will occupy us in the
following chapters. It is with the deepest of all
theological ideas that the Divine Names and the
Mystic Theology are concerned ; as they show how,
according to the principles of the higher symbolism,
man may legitimately use positive terms as de-
scriptive of the Divine Nature, and how, neverthe-
less, that Nature can only be accurately spoken of
in terms of pure negation. The letters ai-e of
varying degi'ees of interest. In one of them ^, the
'Er, VIIL

Introductory

description of a worthy man gloating over the
approaching refcributioo at hand for notable Binners,
till he is reproved by Chiist, who cornea forward
and declares himself ready to suffer once more for
the salvation of men, is, perhaps, almost the only
passage which shows what modern readers would
regard as a distinctly Christian element in hig
religious philosophy.

Since these works formed not only the prescribed
study, but the chief spiritual and intellectual diet of
the man who was set to translate them, our inquiry
into the principles of John the Scot wiU, it is to be
hoped, make us more familiar with the Dionyaian
system. Let us now complete our preliminary
survey by looking briefly at the third member of
our triad — the man by whom tho Neo-Platonist
was to be introduced to the Western world, John
Scotus Erigena^

That John the Scot was an Irishman there seems
little room to douhtj though England, Wales, and
Scotland have all set up pretensions to the honour
of having given him birth. He may seem a misty
figure beside Charles the Bald, though he is cer-
tainly more substantial to us than pseudo-Dionysius,
for he at least was no psmido but a vigorous man,

' Por earefiil and complete stadleii of the life and works of John
the Scot, see Floae^s introdaction to hia works in Migne's PaUu-
io^ia; Chriatlieb's ZSen tmd Lehre dtM J ok. Seotus EH^ena ;
better sllll, Hubers Jokamtet ScQtu» Erigena^ and Poole's
lUuUraiiom of th& MUiory uf Media&x^al Tkou^U^ beaidea more
gd&eiral Lktoriei^ of philoeopky.

Studies in John the Scot

however diflScult it may be to disengage Ms life
from its legendary wrappings.

The few facts ' of which we can rest asaured aro
that John was born and educated in Ireland ; that
he came thence to the court of Charles the Bald,
about the year 847 a*D. ; that he lived and wrote
at the court, not adorned with any ecclesiastical
dignity, but enjoying familiar intercourse with the
king, and— almost certainly— -a up erintending the
educational work done in the school of the palace ;
and that he was still alive and at court in the year
872. Whether he ever lived in Britain we cannot
tell. An Irish monastery would have furnished
him with most of the intellectual equipment which
he carried with him to France. For generationSj
the zeal for good learning in the highly monasti-
cized, perhaps rather laxly-ruled Irish Church,
together with the desire of imparting knowledge
to the unlearned, had inspired * Scots from Ireland^ '
to act out on intellectual missions to the court of
Gaul ; and later on we find complaints of the deluge
of Irishmen which resemble all grumblings against
alien immigrants, however beneficent the work of
such immigrants may be^. Here, however, two

* In Huber and the other authoiitieB. In Flos»*s edition of the
W€irkfi of Scotus (pp. 90 et ssqi) are given, ^fS ajrranged by Gale, the
eliief noticcB which can be taken aa referring to him in mediae vivl
(by no means always con temporary) write ra.

* See GeAkt Kur. Mag. L i ■ Pert^^, ii. 731, apud Poole, p* 16.

^ ' Quid Hjberniam memoremj contempto pelagi discrimiiitij tofco
fcum grege pbHaaophorLim ad litora nostra migranteml' (Eticua

Introductory

points with regard to John's nationality
be noticed: the title Smt^m and the
EHgmia. The former is given to him in the letters
of Pope Nicolas I and of the papal librarian
Anaatasius, and by other indisputable authorities.
We are told by his contemporary, Prudentius of
Troyes, who calls him Scotigena, that he came
from Hibemia. Of coiii-ee there is no contradiction
here, as the people called Scoti then inhabited the
northern part of Ireland, and the purveyors of
wisdom, to whom we have just referred, were Irish
Scots. The name Erigena by itself would not be
decisive, especially as it is not given in the con-
temporary documents, although the curious form
Jerugena figures in the title to the translation of
Dionysius. Setting aside the improbable theory of
Gale, that John meant thereby to denote his birth-
place, a district called Eriuven, in Herefordshire,
and a yet more strange theory as to his Herulian
descent, we may well suppose that, sharing as he
did in the taste of his contemporaries for fanciful
etymologies, he transformed the Land of the West
into the Land of Saints \

It is not unnatural that early chroniclers should
have endeavoured to bring John into connexion
with Alfred the Great, and even to connect him

AltiBJuodoraneiSj i^pud Floaa^ p. i6). This may be laudAtory, but
should he compared with the rage of FrudentiiiB agamst the Celtioj
eloquenoe uacd by John.

^ A filmiliu* t&ncy k seen in the dasaical name far Jeraeal^m]
Miermoluma,

Studies in John the Scot

with the foundation of the University of Oxford*
On the other side is the negative fact that he is not
mentioned by Asser— for the * John, priest and monk,
of the race of the Old Saxons/ of whom Asser writes
that Alfred made him Abbot of Athelney, can
hardly be the same with our Erigena. William of
Malmesbury, writiog during the first half of the
twelfth century, tells of the coming of John the
Scot to Malmesburyjandof his being made master of
the monastic school. He is not ignorant as to the
chief of John's works, the peculiar character of bis
writings, and his life at the court of Charles the
Bald, concerning which he tells two rather puerile
anecdotes which do not very well accord with the
character of John as vre should picture it from
his works ^ Added to these is the strange story
of his end, how his Bcholars pierced him to death
with their pens. His epitaph was to be read at
Malmesbury :

* Condi tuH hoc turaalo EmnctuB Bftphista loftnnes^
Qui ditatiiia ewiit vivena iam dogmate miro \
Martjrio tandem meruit conaoendeie coekim,
Qoo semper cuncti reprint per secula aaiicti/

But the date of this account is many centuries
after the event it pretends to relate, and the epitaph

^ Lib, V. de Fontificilju^, apnd Flosa, p, gi. One of these in tbe
wen-know D repartee ; 'Quid dietat inter Sottnra et Scottnm? , . ,
** Tabula tantura'*'; and the other is the argtiment to jaetifj- the
divi^on of two big and one E^maU H&h amnng two bi^r and one ainaU
maTi, hj0vmg in /mm ffgs the two big fieh to the Email man and the
sm^ll fi^ to the Vwo big tn^n^,

Introductory

itself is not of undoubted autteiiticity. Minor
difficulties have been suggested : Would the ortho-
dox Alfred have harboured a man under the papal
bani Would John have been made schoolmaster
at the advanced age which he must have reached
before he came to England, if this story is true ?
The term * sanctus sophista ' suits him well enough,
but his relations with his pupils^ judging from
his dialogue with one of them in Be Bivmone
Naturae, were not of such a distressing kind as is
supposed in the story of hia martyrdom.

To turn from fiction to fact, from nebulous legend
to the man as he reveals himself to ua in his books,
let us see how far, or in what respects, John the
Scot was fit to undertake the task of mediating
between Eastern and Western thought*

In the first place^ his tone of mind and feelings
was in many respects Greek, more truly Greek
than even that of Dionysius himself. For if, as
has been sometimes said^ the chief characteristic
of the Greeks was to he seekers — to be always
striving after truth and beauty — then John the
Scot, Irish though he might be, was a Greek of
the Greeks. He never seems to rest satisfied with
any principle that he has laid down, but follows it
on to its utmost conclusions. If his argument is
beset with difficulties, he prepares himself to face
them. Except in professedly controversial works,
where vituperation of an opponent is part of the
atoek in trade, he is less inclined to denounce than

Studies in John the Scot

to examine, and inhere he does deuounee, it is
rather because his adversaiy's views lead to impious
misrepresentatioDS of gi'eat truths than because
they confliet with the established order.

With this seeking attitude we find naturally
^ a lofty conception of the claims of human reason.
Not that Scotus was nnwULing to acknowledge the
limits of human intelligence- — in this respect he
waSj as we shall see, more modest and more far-
sighted than most of his contemporaries and
successors— but he admitted no lights on the
part of any external authority to interfere with
the legitimate processes of the human mind*
'Authority J* he says, 'proceeds from right reason^
not reason from authority. . . . Rightful authority^
seems to me nothing else than truth discovered hy
the power of reason, and committed to writing
by the holy Fathers for the benefit of posterity ^'
True, Augustine says something of the same kind ^ \ .
but Scotus seems to hold this view more strongly
than Augustine did* Of course he considers that
the Scriptures and the authorized writings of the
Fathers ougJd to be in harmony with the results of
rational investigation. Like other commentators,
he has no scruple in twisting scriptural texts or
citing isolated passages to confirm his own theories.
But when there is apparent contradiction^ as in the
passage which gives rLse to the expression of this
principle, he boldly follows the light of reason.

' Be Bitisione Naiuraej i, 69. ^ Be Ordin. ii. 9^ a 6.

Introductory

Such being his view as to the paramount claitna
of reason, we are not surprised to find him identi-
fying religion with philosophy. * For what is the
study of philosophy other thao the explanation
of the rules of that religion by means of which
God, the highest and principal Cause of all things,
is made the object of humblo worship and of
reasonable inquiry ^^' Here again he quotes
St. Augustine, but he seema in fact to go fm*ther
than his authority. If his definition or description
of philosophy does not accord with that of the
ancient Greeks in all respects, it is quite applicable
to those later schools with which Christianity was
brought into contact^ especiaUy the Neo-Platonigig
and the Neo-Pythagoreans.

Cognate to these points of common interest
between our Irish thinker and the Greek philoso-
phei-s is the high value he places on the contempla-
tive life* This appears throughout his writings.
In an age in which monasticism was flourishing
and was opposing a counteracting infiuenco to the
materializing tendencies of a warlike society, our '
philosopher — whether or not a monk himself — was
not alone in emphasizing the importance of the
inner and the intellectual life. But whereas
monastic piety was generally more directed to the
ascetic and passive aspects of contemplation, Scotus
would find in the highest spiritual spheres full
scope for the exercise of intellectual energy,
' Bt Praed&itijiaiionef i. i .

Studies in John the Scot

Thinking as he thought and taught to think was
hard work, and needed all the aid of the logical
methods of the ancients. The impoaaibility for
human beings to attain to any kind of knowledge
other than that which ia involved in self-knowledge
of the moat intimate kind is one of the fundamental
principles of his philosophy.

With this natural tendency to speculative
thought, and the loose interpretation of dogma
which naturally accompanied it ; with a disposition
to soar after ideals rather than to lay down laws ;
John the Scot was out of reach of those theological
and philosophical tendencies of his time, which
were bringing Latinity into the world of ideas at
the same time that the Holy Roman Church and
the Holy Roman Empire were giving a kind of
social Latinity to Western Christendom. Rightly
does William of Malmesbiiry ^ say of him that ' he
deviated from the path of the Latins while he kept
hiB eyes intently fixed on the Greeks ; wherefore
he was reputed a heretic/ Hia regard for Greece as
entirely superior to Rome, and as about to supersede
the imperial city in honour and power, is expressed
very strongly in some lines — -if they are really
his ^ — appended to his translation of Dionysius,

It is, however, almost superfluous to say, that
with a 'soul naturally Platonic/ John was not
a well-read Greek scholar. He knew, at least.

' Be FtmL y. apud FIosb, p. 91*

* Christlieb coQsidera that thej are not by Scotus, p. ^8.

Introductory

Bome stories from Homer ^ ; he knew something of
Aristotle ^j but probably only from fragmentary
translationSj including an exposition of the Cate-
goiiea attributed to St. Augustine^; even Plato,
whom be calls * philosophantium de mundo maxi-
mus */ was perhaps only known to him by means
of a Latin translation of the Timaeii^^ But Platonic
doctrines bad filtered down into books which were
accessible to him, sucli as those of Boethius, whom
he repeatedly quotes ; the Greek Fathers, eBpecially
Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen, whom,
strange to say, he regards as one person ^; and most
notably into that great storehouse whence^ for
very various purposes, theologians of all shades
have ever fortified themselves with things new and
old — the voluminous writings of Augustine, But
none of these seem so entirely to have been
assimilated into his mental fabric as the works of
Dlonysiua, which he probably first found at the
court of Charles the Bald. If it were not too bold
a conjecture to make on our very insufficient data,
we might suggest that the fame of those writings
and the desire to see and handle them had first

*- Ab (D« Div. Nat iii. 35) the recogniUon of OiiysaeuB "by
his dog,

* Whom lie ciiUfl * msatiBaimaa apod GraeooB . . . naturallumremm
tiiicretiouiB repertor.'

■ See Pod«, cbap. i, for tlie Librarj ftt York. John may huve
■een more Greek books in Iralandj but it i« bftrcUy prqhablo,

* De Dm Nat L 31.

^ Ibid. iii. 38. Bathe certaialy diet) nguifibea them in ii, 27* Can
tb« ' qui etiMU Nazianztjuoa vocatyr "* p<}atdbly b« a copyist's ^loBfil
C 2

Studies in John the Scot

attracted him from hia ^ Land of Saints/ Next to
DionyaiuSj and chiefly valued^ as throwing light
on the thoughts of the Areopagitej come the
treatises of Maximiig the Monk, some of which he
translated, and which he often quotes. He also
speaks with great respect of Origen, who was, like
himself, a Hellenic Christian born out of due time.
He makes a pathetic and not undignified figure,
this eager, slightly-built ^ Irishman, with his subtle
mind, his studious habits, his deeply reverent
apiiitj his almost fanatical devotion to the wise
men of former days, Pagan or Christian, who bad
lived in the light of a wider civilization : called
upon to fight the battles of the West with arms
forged in the East, and reprimanded even in the
hour of conquest for having transgressed the rules
of the field. Whether or no the ugly story of his
death by his scholars' pens may contain any truth,
he bad to endure sharp thrusts from the pens of
those whom he sought to instruct, and who were
not able to appreciate his teaching. He may or
he may not have rested beneath a slab on which be
was commemorated as a martyr, but assuredly
he was a witness for the truth, some aspects of
which he could see clearlyj but could not make
manifest to more than a very few, either of his
contemporaries or of the men of later times,

^ S6« introduotion to tnnaktmn of the Ambigua of M&ximuft.
* ' PeraxiUs carpotis,' if William of Malineabury foHowed a Bafe
trftdltloa.

Introductory

There have been three critical perioda in the
world's history in which it has seemed possible
that the religious life of a whole society might
become inspired by a, pure and fervent zeal bounded
and directed by a sane and free philosophy, a
philosophy rationally eclectic in borrawing from
the wisdom of the past, broadly sympathetic and
humane in its appreciation of moral excellence in
all times and places. The first of these crises waa
in the reign of Alexander Severus, when the young
Emperor's virtuous mother, Mammaea, was ia
correspondence with the Christian philosopher,
Origen ; and it seemed as if Christianity might have
been adopted by the Empire disinterestedly and on
its own merits, under conditions which might have
promised it a healthy, peaceful, and eminently
reasonable development through succeeding ages.
But this was not to be. Nearly thirteen hundred
yeia^ laterj when the need of a reform in the
Church — both of head and members — in doctrine,
discipline, and worship, was evident to every
serious-minded person, it seemed as if the men of
the New Learning, enthusiastic as John the Scot
himself for Greek ideas, attached, some of them, as
he was, to the teaching of the Areopagite, might
have found a remedy for abuses without making
a sharp and final breach with the past ; might have
delivered men*s minds from one tyranny without
subjugating them to another ; might have annihilated
superstition without doing violence to any objects

Shtdies in John the Scot

worthy of reverential regard. But this again was
not to be. And now we see, almost in the middle
point of the time between these two great oppor-
tunities, another of the * migh t- b aye- been s' of the
spiritual histor}" of Europe. If the intellect and
the devotion of the Middle Ages had followed the
lines of John Scotus, there would have been no
scholasticism, but the growth of a philosophy
Chriatian in its teleology and its ethics, acute and
probabl}^ as time went on, critical in its methods,
always progi^essive and turned to the light* The
gross materialism, the lurid horror of the unseen,
the spirit of persecution, the slavish deference to
ecclesiastical authority, which make the darker
side of the Middle Ages, would not have been there.
But men are not always most readily moved by
the highest ideals; rules are found mors necessary
for society than aspirations ; statements which seem
to be definite are more generally received than such
as only pretend to be approximations to an incom-
prehensible truth. There have been * Platonic
revivals ' since that day^ and there are hkely to be
others from time to time so long as man moves and
iJiinks on earth ; but if the future is in this respeot
bound to reaemble the past, their influencej if deep,
will never be very wide.

But if, in our own day\ we see traces in the
religious ideas and the general outlook of a good

' ThiB thought IB emphasized in the last of the Hul^eaQ LoctiunM
for 1898-9, hy Archdeacon Wilion*

Introductory

many educated people of a reaction against tbe
definite, juristic, inelastic spirit, and all the influ-
ences which are sunimed up in the word Latinity^
and a desire after a free intellectual Ufe with a vast
spiritual background — such as may be denoted by
the words Ckridian Hdleni&m — it seems natural
that some among tis should look with interest on
the labours and the productions of John the Scot.
It is far beyond the scope of the present writer
to examine in detail all the works of our author,
and to assign to each ita place in theological
literature; that task has ah^sady been achieved
by much abler hands. But if we dwell for a while
on a few of the points in which Scotus seems to
show philosophic insight, and observe the changed
condition of the problems before him when they
were subjected to the light derived from his
dominant ideas, we may be a little better able to
realize the conflict among mental and moral forces
in the very early days of European culture. And
though it may seem a bold course to take, it will
perhaps ba the surest way of attaining our end,
if we start from the most fundamental and pre-
dominant idea in all philosophic thought.

CHAPTER II

THE UNKNOWN GOD

'0 Thou that in our bosom's shrine
Dost dwell — unknown because divine;

I will not frame one thought of what
Thou mayest either be or not;
I will not prate of thus and sOy
Nor be pro&ne with yes and no;
Enough that in our soul and heart
Thou, whatsoe'er Thou mayst be, art.'

A. H. Clough.

While it may safely be asserted that in order
to understand thoroughly the character of any
philosophic school, any social or political combi-
nation of persons, even any individual man or
woman, we must penetrate to their inmost con-
victions and habits of thought on matters to do
with religion and theology, this is most evidently
the case where a distinctly theological tone pre-
dominates in the mental and moral atmosphere
wherein such character has its environment. We
need not stop to discuss why the theological

The Unknown God

element in life and thought is more prominent
at some times than at others, nor whether the
prevalence of theological conceptions alwa^^s varies
With the strength of religious convictions* Cer-
tainly, there can be no doubt that both the period
in which the writings originated which John the
Scot introduced to the Western worlds and the days
in which he himself stood before Charles the Bald,
were distinctly theological in tone. All historians
of philosophy have noted the tendency to dwell
oo the supernatural which max^ks the later sects
of Greek thought. And we have already seen that
the intellectual food on which John the Scot was
nom-ished consisted mainly of theological treatises,
insomuch that what he knew of the more general
and open fields of knowledge had been in great
part gleaned from the patristic writings. It waa
not, for most people^ an age of much or of deep
thought, this middle part of the ninth century; but
it was an age in which whatever thought there
was became necessarily directed into theological
channels. Art had declined to its nadir ; physical
science, poetry, speculative inquiry, had no hope
of resuscitation unless they allowed themselves to
be pressed into the service of theology and rehgion.
But even apart from the current of his times, John
the Scot was one whose mind naturally turned to
subjects where there was more scope for lofty
speculation than for minute determination.

It is, then, in his theology, fii"st and foremost,

ss^ Studies in John the Scot

that we see the Greek and EaBtern tone of John's
mind as opposed to the Latin or German and
Western tendencies of his times. If we try to
trace Ms ideas and those of men who have shared
them up to their ultimate sourceSj we find the task
wellnigh imposf^ible. In framing its conception
of God, no sect, no human mindj can dare to be
either quite original or entirely dependent upon
others. Men accept suggestions that come to them,
they know not whence, and develop them, con-
Bciously or uDconsciously, into forms that may bear
a close resemblance to others which they bave
never met. In times when religion and philosophy
are eclectic, tbe origin and progress of religious
ideas are all the more difEcult to follow. In reading
tbe works of the Neo-Platonic philosophers, as in
hearing some of tbe sermons of our own preacheiBj
we are often surprised by a remark that seems
striking and oiiginal till we have met itj often
couched in the same phi*aseology, in some other
region whence it may or may not have come to
its more recent propounder— probably be biniself
knows as little as we.

Yet there are certain broad distinctions between
the ways in which man has represented to his
mind the idea of the Divine, which may be said
to distinguish certain races or certain stages of
development. Thus we may say that generally
the Jewish idea of God was that of a Creator and
Ruler of nature and man, whereas the lastj as per-

The Unknown God

haps the first, word of Greek philosophy was the
recognition of an all- perm eating divine life. Yet
history shows that bridges had been built, especially
at Alexandria, between the Semitic and the Hellenic
conceptions of Divinity. The grandest religious
expression of Pagan aspirations ^*the hymn of
Cleanthes the Stoic— is an address to *The most
glorioxis of the Immortals, Zeus the many-named,
the Ordainer of Nature/ Again, the idea of a
transcendent God is sometiraes regarded as specially
characteristic of Plato. And^ it was a Christian
who felt himself to be a Hebrew of the Hebrews
that taught his conveiis of a * God and Father of
allj which is above all, and through all^ and in you
all/ The conceptions of a tmnscendent, of an
immanent, and of a creating and ruling God, how-
ever inconsistent or even antagonistic they may
appear, are often found blended in the conscious-
ness of thoughtful and religious minds. Yet no
mind can habitually dwell indifferently on each
of these several aspects of the dimly apprehended
yet intensely realized object of the spiritual con-
sciousness. And each man who insists on one
aspect is doing service to the world, which cannot
afford to lose permanently any portion of truth
which may have been tempomrily obscured, even
for generations. The men who surrounded and criti-
cized John the Scot might— for they were orthodox

* If tte Pauline authoraliip of the Epistle tf> the Epheiians
be accepted. If Dot, Uie «bove ai^iimeat U not ^rea^tly afiectedU

Studies in John the Scot

and held the Qvbkunqvs milt—hKv^ acknowledged
in words that God is incomprehensible, yet they
thought they knew pretty clearly His mind
towards the world, and were not afraid to attribute
to Him many of their own impulses and passions.
To Scotus, aa to Dionysius and his predecessors,
God was the super-essentialj super-intellectual
principle beyond all being and thought, though, as
a thinking man, Scotus was bound to find some
relation between that principle and the world of
natui'e and of humanity j and as a Christian man
he was bound to biing his aspiring theological con-
ceptions into some soil of accord with the moral
and religious teaching of the Scriptures and of the
Fathers of the Church.
h- To express the idea of the transcendent God in
the most uncompromising language we may quote
from the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius, who
was here closely followed by John the Scot. The
writer is maintaining the character of the Athenian
worshipper of an Unknown God» Of course there
is no reason for connecting the inscription recorded
to have been noticed by St. Paul with any expres-
sion of philosophic agnosticism. Altars to unknown
gods are met with on various occasions ; thus
Pausanias saw one at Phalerum^ and they were
probably dedicated rather to such deities as, though
worth conciliating^ were sufficiently unimportant
to be lost in a crowded pantheon, than to any who

' Beecripflon of Greece^ i* i, 4.

The Unknown God

were too vast to he comprehended within the range
of the Olympiana, A portentous event might
manifest the present pcwer of a god or goddess
without giving any clue to the name. But even
if grounded on an error in archaeology, the assign-
ment of these writings to a worshipper, in apostolic
times, of an unknown and unknowable deity ^ is
in complete accordance with their whole tone and
character.

It is in the ifystical Theology that Dionysius,
endeavouring to treat of God in Himself, apart
from man and nature, is obliged to use terms of
the purest negation ^ Thus he says : * He is neither
soul nor mind ; He has neither imaginatioUj nor
opinion, nor word, nor thought; nor is He word
or thought ; He uttereth no word and thinketh no
thouj^ht; neither is He number, nor order, nor
greatness, nor littleness, nor equality, nor inequality,
nor likeness, nor difference ; He standeth not, nor
moveth He, neither doth He take rest; He hath
not power, nor is He power, nor light ; He liveth
notj neither is He life; He ia not being, nor
eternity, nor time ; neither is He within touch of
reason; He is not skill, nor ia He truth, nor
dominion, nor wisdom ; neither one, nor unity, nor
divinity, nor goodness, nor yet spirit, as known
to us 5 neither aonship nor fatherhood, nor any-
thing that is known to us or to any other beings ;
neither is He of the thingB that are, nor of those

' Be Mfgt. TheoL, end.

Studies in John the Scot

that ate not \ neither do the things that are know
Him in that He ia, nor doth H© know the things
that are in that they are \ neither doth any word
pertain to Him, nor name^ nor thought; He ia
neither darkness nor light, neither error nor truth ;
neither is there for Him any place nor any removal ;
for when we place and when we remove those that
come after Him, we do not so with Him ; for the
perfect and unifying Cau8e is beyond any placej
and the excellent Simplicity withdrawn from all
things ia beyond any taking away, and stands
apart from all things/

ThiB attempt at entire negation may seem to
break down in the use of the word Cavm^ In
a somewhat similar passage in Origen^ we have
the expression Father of truths of knowledge, and
the like. Here at least we are deviating from the
purely literal, which, according to DionysiuSj must
here be equivalent to the purely negative* In
factj the barrenness of these regions of thought
must drive men into affirmations of some kind,
even if they carefully guard themselves by assert-
ing that such affix'matioDS can only have a symbo*
Heal or figurative meaning. Perhaps the last word
of scepticism might be a question as to the literal
truth even of such negative statements as those
just given. But, leaving this suggestion on one
side, we may observe that John the Scot pondered ,
much on the Kara^ari/ctJ and the airoipaTi.Kri of the*'|
* Com^ SL Jn*f quoted by Vacliero^ vol* i. p, 364*

The Unknown God

Dionysian theology, and derived a clearer view on
the subject from the works of Maximus the Monk,
some of which he afterwards tranalated into Latin I.

A considerable poi-tion of the first book of Scotus*
De Dividone Naturae is taken up with an examina-
tion of the ten categories, so as to show that not
one of them can be rightly applied to God. That
of relation might seem to be implied in the doctrine
of the Trinity, hut the philosopher shows that
any predication of relations such as fatherhood and
sonship to the Divine Being can only be figurative,
* Locus/ which he makes equivalent to definitioBj
cannot be asserted of that which is not contained
in any intelligent mind. As to quality^ we cannot
ascribe to the Universal even the highest of proper-
ties. He is not wise and good, hut more-than-wise,
more-than-goodj and the hke. He does not even
fall under the category of being, since He is more-
than-being. Action and Buffering may in Scripture
be frequently predicated of God. But snch pre-
dication is always in a transferred or symbolical
sense.

How then, we may ask, can DiooysiuSj or ScotuSj
or any of their followers, believe in anything
approximating to a divine revelation^ How can
such an immeasm^ably distant Being, or Hyper-
being, be brought into the reach of human conscious-
ness! How can this doctrine be aaaimLlated to

^ See prologue to Soot's tr&mJation of the AuiMgua S. Maximij

Shidies in John ike Scot

those of the Church ? And how ean it satisfy the
requirements of a natural religion which seeks for
a principle of life and of harmony not beyond, but
within the actual and visible world ?

As we endeavour to indicate the lines along
which the solution of the problem is to be found,
we may observe that their agnosticism (if this
term be taken in its simplest sense) does not
preclude these writers from the free use of significant
tei-ms found in the speech of ordinary people. If
these terms are consciously used by them in a
figurative sense, this does not Imply unreality to
those who have grasped the fact that all our
language and thought must necessarily deal in '
symbols and figures. To this point we shall return
in our chapter on symbol and sacrament. Here
we may lay stress on the clearness gained by
removing our questions from the sphere of the
objective into that of the subjective. We have no
longer to pnzzle ourselves with efforts to prove
that God is this or that, but to inquire whether
we are justified in thinking of Him under such andj
such attributes, and denoting Him by such and such'
names. Dionysius wrote a whole treatise on * the
Divine Names,* and Scotus conceived more clearly
than did his master the nature of the mind and
its limits in endeavouring to comprehend the
Divine. Man can only know what is in his own
mind. We can inquire ' not how things are either
eternal or created, but /or ivhat reason they may b&i

The Unknown God

called both created and eternal/ This reason may
not be eaay to find, nor is it a light matter to lay
down laws as to the symbolism which may be used
to illustrate the Divine Nature, bub the task is one
to which the highest human powers are not so
inadequate as they needs must be to assail the
great theologieal questions in direct attack.

Of course it is insufficient to say that the ad-
missible names of God are those given in Scripture,
or handed down by holy men, since both Dionysius
and John the Scot are very free in theii- use of
Scripture, and quite eclectic in theii' citations from
theologians. But it is plain throughout theii-
wiitings that no outward voice is regarded as
capable of doing more than corroborate that which
apeaks within the soul. Man can name and can
think of God because in his inmost substance he is
of God, ' All divine things/ says Dionysius, * in so
far as they are manifested to ns^ are known only
by participation therein/ To the Unknown, Un-
named, he feels an affinity, in that he recognizes
a ^ power by which we are joined, in a way that
passes comprehension, to the Unspeakable and
Unknowable, in that union which is stronger than
any strength of mind or intellect ^.' And similarly
Seotus : * In so far as (man) partakes of divine and
heavenly existence, he is not animal, but through
his reason and intellect and his thoughts of the
Eternal, he shares in celestial being, , , , In that
* Be I>h^ Nom, L

Studies in John the Scot

part of him, then, is he made in the image of God,
with which alone God holds converse in men that
are worthy ^' And Maximus ^, who in many points
is to be regarded as a mean term between Diony-
sins and Scotus, says ; * As the air illuminated by
the Bun appears to be nothing but light i not that
it loses its own nature, but because light prevaUa
in it : so human nature, joined to God, is said in
all things to be God : not that it ceases to be human
nature, but that it receives a participation in
Divinity so that in it God alone is found.'

Such participation can never amount to the
vision of the Invisible. Against quotations from
the Scriptures such as ' I saw the Lord seated," and
those which describe Him as actuated by passions
and desires, Scotus could set other passages like :
* Who hath known the mind of the Lord % ' * Above
all that we can ask or think.' ' The peace of God
which passeth all understanding/ Even the pre-
diction of the beatific vision to be enjoyed by
saints in glory is not to be taken literally. Here
Scotus adopts and expands the docti"ine of Diony-
sius as to theophanies ^. These ai^e a divine vision,
vouchsafed to privileged souls, by which every
revelation is made. All recorded visions of the
Most High are, if realj to be regai'ded as theo-
phanies, not as an actual beholding by the eye or

» De Biv. Nat. iv. 5.

^ I here quote from Scotot* tranalation, ibid»

^ CoeL Bier. ©. it.

The Unknown God

even by the imagination. As a commentator on
DionysiuB saysj it waa the glo'i^ of God, not God
Himself, that Moses desired, and was in part privi-
leged to see. Maximus has represented theophaniee
as resulting from a kind of deification of humanity :
*As high as the human intelligence rose by love,
so low did the Divine Wisdom descend by mercy/
And here Scotus strikes more distinctly the note
of subjectivity which marks all his system by
making the theophany propoiiionate to the capacity
and the character of each mind, whether angelic or
human. He interprets the saying ^In My Father's
house are many mansions * as signifying the revela-
tion made to each individual consciousness. As
many as are the souls of the saints^ so many are
the divine theophanies^

It would seem then that to the individual con-
sciousness is left the task of deciding which of the
nwmes by which the Nameless One may be denoted
is or is not fittings though the authority of holy
men may help in the decision. To this point
we shall recur when we examine more closely the
subject of symbols and sacramentB. Here we may
notice which are the chief names of God allowed by
Dionysius^. These are Goodne&s, Love, Being,
Life^ Wisdom, Keason, Faith, Power, Justice^ Salva-
tion, Redemption ; also to Him have been applied
the adjectives great, minute, same, other, Uke,
unlike, stable, moving, equal. More particularly :

* De Biv, NaL L 8, 9, 10. ' Ds Div. ^om. cc, 5-1 1,

Shidies in John the Scot

Almighty, Ancient of Days, Peace, Holy of Holies,
God of GodSj Perfect, and One. God may be cele-
brated as *caiiaej beginning, being, the awakening
and setting up of the fallen, the renewal and restora-
tion of the declining, the assurance of waverers,
the security of the steadfast, the guidance of those
turned towards Hinij the light of the illuminated,
the perfection of the initiated, the divinity of those
conformed to God, the simplicity of the simple, the
unity of those that are made one ; dominion above
dominion, being of all dominion; the gracious
bestowalj according to fitness, of that which is
hidden; the Being of beings, the beginning and
cause of life and being, through the goodness by
which all things together are fruitful and multiply
and hold together in One.* We may also borrow
the occasional expressions of prophet or seer as to
* the arm of the Lord,* ' Thy throne,' and the like ;
and those derived from the conception of a ruling
providence, as *King of kings,' 'Creator/ and
others. In using the name Ztwe we may take it in
the sense either of eros or of agap^t for we may
regard as divine both the passionate longing after
the good and beautifulj and also that giving up of
self into the power of another, by which the diverse
are made one, and the faulty are drawn towards
perfection.

John the Scot, in accepting the names, warns
his readers against interpreting them in a literal
sense* This may seem to provoke a criticism like

the Unknoivn God

that macle by J. S. Mill against the sophistry and
immorality of a philosophy which attributed to
God names of moral qnalitiGS in another sense
from that in which we ascribe Buch qualities to
men. But the likeness between the philosophy
of Scotus and that which moved the righteous
indignation of the clearest and boldest of English
thinkers is only superficial. For to Scotus justice
and mercy in man were but an offshoot or reflection
of that whichj unknown and unnamed, we may
call the justice and mercy of God, If God and
man do not stand side by side, but the lesser
spiritual being is contained in the greater, we can
have no comparison, and consequently no difference.
We are not making God in our image, with our
virtues and vices, but we are looking at ourselves
from the point of view of the idealist theologian^ —
as made in the image of God.

But we must pass on to inqnire how tbis philo-
sophy of an Unknown God can deal with such
a subject as that of the creation of the world and
the maintenance of natural laws. Of coui-sej in
a literal sense, God is not Creator. The word
Creator is among the names assigned by Dionyaius
to God. ' We hold,* says Scotus \ * that all things
are from God, and that they have not been made
at all but by Him, since by Him and from Him
and in Him are all things made ; ' and again ^ :
* When we hear it said that God makes all things,
» i>* Biv, Nat. m. t2, ^ Ibid. I 72.

Sttidtes in John the Scot

we ought to understand simply that God is in all
things; that is, that He subsists as the Being of
all things.* Of a creation in time there can, of
course, be no question, since time and apace can
never be predicated of the Spiritual, neither can
we regard the act of creation as a movement on
the part of the Immutable, For action and being
are in God identical^- Nor yet can we regard
creation as a making of something out of nothing,
for everything has been made from God Himself^.
Creation is, if we weigh and endeavour to para-
phrase the obscure and scattered utterances of
Scotus, a self-revelation of the principle of all
things to the intelligence which is itself divine,
*In the beginning' stands in the Vulgate In
principioj and this is taken, not by Scotus alone,
but by many of the Fathers acquainted with Greek
philosophy, as equivalent to in Verho^ in the
Eternal Word. Creation is, in fact, the thinking
out of a tboughtj and all that has been written
on the subject by canonical or uncanonieal, but
yet weighty authorities, may be interpreted in
accordance with this conception.

The severest effoiis of the Neo-Platonic philo-
sophers had been devoted to the task of forging,
so to speak, some kind of chain which should reach
from the self-existent to the dependent; and the
Greek Christian Father took up the work till
several series of emanations, borrowed fi'om various
^ Be Biv. Nat. I 72. * Ibid, ii, 4.

The Unknown God

philosophies and religions, are found coexisting in ■
their theological sjetems. To us it may seem as
if one Buch series rendered the others superfluous,
and as if the whole attempt were like that of the
primitive people who piled brick on brick in
the hope of building a tower to reach the skj''.
The result is eonfusing, yet the emanations had,
for the minds of the highest thinkers, their several
and distinct places and functions. It was natural
that the Trinity of the earlier Neo-Platonists^ — of
Being, Reason, and Life — should be accepted by the M
Alexandrian theologians ^. It was not unnatural ■
that the original Platonic ideas, or prototypeSj
should be retained by Neo-Flatoniats and Christians
alike. It was also quite consistent with this that
the later Jewish eonceptioo of the angelic hierarchy
should have been assimilated into the body ofH
quasi- Christian teaching on superior beings. But
when we find that the TrapaBety/jicira are regarded
both by Dionysius and by Scotus as more thanfl
passive types, or even formative reasons — ^rather
as divine wills - — and by Scotus as the chief agents
in creation, the mediation of the angelic hierarchy
eeems a somewhat superfluous hypothesis. The
three hierarchical orders, however, do not appear,

^ ?or the curjouEi mixLtuFe of Neo^ Platonic and CtnatUn idesos m
the mind of an interest! rig and active t^odeskatiis of tlie fouiib
century, I may be allowed to refer to a study I made some years
ago of the life and work of Syneniud of Cyrensj pnlilifibed by tlie
S.P.C.K,

* De Div, Norn. v. 8 j De Die. NaL ii, 3*

Shidtes in John the Scot

in the Dionysian eystem, to have a distinctly creative
function. The work of each triad is to purify, to
enlighten, and to make perfect the souls of thos©
below it, and to each of the angels ib assigned
as care one of the nations of the earth. The angeh
figure but little in the cosmogony of John the
Scot, though he treats of the angelic life as some-
thing superior to that of the reason, while man
participates i|i both^

It will have been observed that most of the
passages to which we refer in order to arrive at
John the Scot's view of creation come from his
chief work, De Bivisione Naturae* In this treatise,
which is in the form of a dialogue between a masiter
and his pupil, he makes an investigation of all
things which can be comprehended in the expression
nature, first dividing them into four classes, thus ;

1. The creating^ not created^equivalent to the
first principle of all things, or God* The cause of
all may he regarded as Being, Wisdomj and Life ^,
Raoh of which aspects is to be associated with one
of the names of the Trinity.

2. The both creating and created. These are
the prototypes or primordial causes, whence all
things come and to which all things must return,

3. The created, not creating. Under this class
come all things belonging to the sensible world.

' 1)0 Div. Ifid. ML 37.

^ Another irlad giren ]S v&tJtaj Swains ^ h4(ijftt^, nr f^^entict^
potefiiaStftpet^ftHo {De Div. Nat. i. ^j).

The Unknown Goc

4. The neither creating nor created. This class
is, like the first, comprehensive of the Divine only,
but it is here regarded under another aspect — that
of the non-creatiog reat which arises from the
return of all things into the primal unity.

In dealing with the third claas Scotus follows
the narrative in Genesis, interpreting it^ of course,
in a figurative sense throughout, as many of the
Fathers^ whom he cites at great length, had done
before him, though his interpretations are often
his own. Thus the fiat htm means the procession
of the primordial causes into form and species such
as are capable of recognition by the intelligence ^
The gathering together of land and water is the
imparting of fomi to unstable matter. The creation
of man, though placed last, has the priority over
allj and is implied in the^^ lux^ since all things
are created in man, who is the image of God,
by the identification of the Logos with human
nature*

But though at first sight it may seem that the
fii*st and fourth of the classes are of divine, the
second and third of other than divine beings,
Scotus does not hesitate to i^ecognize as divine the
members of the intermediate classes. For if God
is the beginning, middle, and end of all things,
those things which are in the middle are also of
Him. In speaking of the primordial causes, Scotus
asserts that even the highest angelic nature cannot

studies in John the Scot

contemplate them except in a theophany, thereby
making them not entirely an emanation from the
Invisible One, but in a sense still comprehended
therein. And even in the lower parts of creation
it is God who is ever being made afresh. ' For the
Creator, descending into the furthermost produc-
tions, beyond which He creates nothing, is said
aimply to be created, not to create/ ThuR Abraham
aaw Him in the motion of the stars, Moses in the
buraing bush. The * vestments white as snow'
which the Apostles beheld surrounding their Lord
on the Mount of Transfiguration, should signify to
us the visible creation in which the Word of God
13 made manifest.

We see here that the Unknown God of Scotus
is immanent in naturej while, in a sense, immeasur-
ably above nature. Perhaps we ought in this
place to consider the question, not a very important
one except for critics who desire to affix a label
significative of some pai^ticular school or mode
of thought on every philosopher^ whether John the
Scot is or is not to be held as a pantheist ^ The
connotation of the word pantheism varies very
considerably according as we signify by it the
merging of God in nature, or the taking up of
nature into God ; or, to put the matter, following
the principles of Scotus, in a subjective form,
according as our notion of God becomes identical

* Christlieb tlunks that lie was — but that lie was better than his
creed. The diaputo s^iuu rattier an idle one.

The Unknown God

with our conception of the ivorldj or our conception
of the world is resolved into the thought of God.
At one point of the dialogue, De Divvdoifie Naturae,
the pupil becomes afraid lest their argument might
lead to an identification of the world and God;
' " Then God is all and all is God 1 '^ Which would
seem to be a monstrous doctrine, even to those
who are considered as wise men, if they consider
the multiplicity and variety of things visible and
invisible ; for God is one ^' By saving the doctrine
of the one in the manifoldj he escapes from any form
of materialistic pantheism. At the same time, we
cannot say that he ascribes pei*sonality to God
who isj in Dionyaian phrase, ^moiB than person
Entire self-consciouBness seems not to be predicable
of Him. He does not tnow HimseK aa this or
that, for He is not this or that. We may say of
man that he cannot entirely know himself, yet
human personality is not thereby denied. But the
subject of cognition will conceni us later on.

We have suggested and partly answered the
question how Scotus brought his fundamental
doctrine of theology into accordance with the
established belief of the Church in his day. We
have seen that he accepted the doctrine of the
Trinity, and used it, in a Neo*Platonic fashion, in
his theory of creation. The Father created all
things in the Logos, and the work of the Spirit
is distributive, Scotus alsOj after the example of

^ Be DjV, Nat iu* lo.

■|

Studies in John the Scot

the Greek Fathers \, connected that doctrine with
the psychologic division of the human mind into
anim'm, ratio. Mid. sensus^. He calls the Trinity
a T€XfTa/>xta UpoBia-ia ^, and ie careful, as we have
seen, to avoid giving a literal and anthropomorphic
interpretation of the relations among the divine
Persons. In one point he depiirts from the ortho-
doxy of the West: he declares that the procession
of the Hol^ Ghost is from the Father through the
Son *. Yet he cannot differ so far from authorized
beliefs as does Dionjsius, who compares the Father
to a stem, of which the Son and the Spirit are
offshoots.

The ideas of Seotue on redemption and the final
restitution of mankind will concern us hereafter,
With the conception of the incarnation of the Word
there goes in close connexion — hut without con-
fusion—that of the deification of human nature.

But it were labour lost to seek for traces of
orthodoxy or heterodoxy in the primary theological
principles of Scotus, He could cite the Scriptures,
the Greek Fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, occasionally
a pagan philosopher, where their words could be
made to suit his meaning, and he is able to interpret
almost any accepted doctrine in a fashion that

* According to Vacherot, it was Gregory of Nje^a who fin^
Btruok out tbat line of thought. The divisionfl are not aJw&ys the
same,

^ Dt Biv. N(iL ii. 34^

^ tn Com. on CoeL Sier, ii,

* Bt Dh\ KuL ii. 33.

The Unknown God

would fit it into his system. Yot it would be
unfair to say that he pretended to be what he was
not, and to pass as an ordinary Christian while
really owning no allegiance to any authority but
that of human reason. In the reverent tone which
pervades all his writings, in his pious ejaculations,
his ardent longing for spiritual knowledge, his
gratitude for the beauty of nature and for the
wisdom of great men of the past, we see a character
and disposition which belong to him as Christian
even more than as philosopher.

If bis ideas had been more generally accepted
than they were, we should have found, among
mediaeval thinkers, less anxiety to define the in-
definable, more patient acquiescence in the hmita-
tions of human faculties. Yet there would have
been no less, but rather more and more enlightened
reverence for that Unknown of whom we may say
that He is, yet never what He is ; whose existence
and attribates can never b© demonstrated, but who
can be found and worshipped in the Innermost
shrine of the souL

CHAPTER in

8COTU8 AND THE PREDESTINATION CONTB0YEB8Y.

'Otbera Ap&Tt eat on & hill retired,
In thoughts more elevate, R^d reasoiied high
Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and &te,
FLied fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end, in WAndering m&zes lost.'

Furadife LqH, ii. 557-561,

If ever there was any human being placed in
a manifeBtly false position, breathing an element
not bis own, struggling with tasks at once above
and below bia powers, it is the eclectic philosopher
drawn into the meehes of theological controversy,
Aceuetomed to look for truth on every sidej he has
become a partisan, with eyes shut to all that does
not lie on the path he has chosen. While fully
aware of the inadequacy of language to express the
highest thoughts, and of the impotency of the
human mind to solve the problems which it persists
in attempting, be finds himself convicting of error
those whose words might be made to bear a meaning

Scottis and Predestmaiion

IB which he would fullj concur, and to condemn
as wickedness a confusion due to human weakness*
Whereas he can only think profitably in an atmo-
sphere of peace and caluij he has descended into the
arena full of dust and of shoutings. The dieputa-
tious tone he assumes is likely to be more harmful
to him than to another, because his clearer vision
carries with it an obligation to wider charity.
The energy which he should employ in constructive
work is expended in effoi-ta which, to him at leasts
arfe superfluous- For the most peimanent and ever-
pressing questions argued by theologians in all ages
wear a different aspect to him and to those whose
life is not primarily one of thought. Religious
mysteries he will reverently acknowledge, but
religious puzzles ai-e, for him^ meaningless* Such
puzzles as disturb the mind of every intelligent
child to whom religious ideas are communicated,
and of every plain man who has some religious
belief, are due in almost all cases to an anthro-
morphic view of Deity or to a materialistic view of
humanity, and from both these sources of confusion
the cultivated thinker — not always the bold specu-
lator of a primitive culture — is comparatively free.
Thus, in the caae before us, there was no reason why
Seotus should have associated himself intimately
with those wh0| in his day, were busying themselves
with dreary arguments on the subject of Predesti-
nation and on that of the Sacraments. Nay, when
he did take up these questionsj be found it im-

4S Studies in John the Scot

possible to disguise from bis fellow-combatants the
fact that he was not fighting on their level* The
CU170US reyult, both in the impreaaion be produced,
and in the transformation which the contested
matters underwent in his handsj lends a peculiar
and human interest to what might seem a dull,
interminable war of words, waged with a perverted
faith, an unjustified hope, and a conspicuous absence
of charity^

The forerunners of Scotus had, in some caseB,
seen that controversy was not their forte, Otie
letter of Dionysiue ^ contains admonitions which
his disciple might have followed with advantage to
his reputation : ' Do not esteem it a victory, my
revered friend, to have poured scorn upon a religious
practice or a beHef that displeases you. For your
confutation, however logical, does not prove you to
be in the right. It is possible that both you and
other people, amid so much that is false or only
apparent, may fail to diseem the truth which is one
aad secret. If anything is not red, it ia not
necessarily white ; if a creature is not a horsej it
need not be a man. If you follow my advice, this
wiU be your line of action : to cease from reviling
others, but to speak for the truth in such fashion
iJiat what you say can never be refuted/

In general, John's exposition of the truths that
he had grasped was of this positive kind. But,
like other Neo- Platonic philosophers both Pagan

^ The siztlL— to Bosipiiter.

Scotiis and Predestination

and Ckriatian — like Porphyry, Julian, Origen — he
was forced, on at least this one occasion, to abandon
hia usual course. Instead of keeping to his argu-
mentSjwithan occasional side-tbniBt at his opponents,
he directs his discourse at the head of his victim,
leaving suggestions of positive doctrine to be ga-
thered by the way. The occasion was given by the
request of Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, that he
would write a refutation of the theory of the monk
Gottschalkj on what was called the theory of ^ dual ' '
{gemina) predestination,

Hincmar of Rheims was one of the most notable
men of the century ^ He held the metropolitan
see of Rheims, after a stormy inteiTegnunjj from
844 to 882, during a period when Church and State
alike were in a condition of distraction approaching
to anai-chy. Church property had been appropriated
right and left ; bishops of doubtful pretensions had,
by performing sacerdotal acts of uncertain validity^
given occasion for strifes and schisms among clergy
and laity; the divisions of the Empire had yet
further complicated the relations of the higher
bishops under whose control lay districts whichj

^ There are Tarioue lirea of Hincmar, and bis works ^re in
Migne*ft Patrologia. Noordeu'a Life (Ecum, 18G3) ie full, clear, and
impartiaL A. good manj of the docnmentfii Telatin^ to the Gottn^
ichallc controversy ^e to be found in Migne ; the two Confeasions
of Gottflclialk also In the worke of Archbiehop Ussber. A very
extenflive collection waa made by the Jaueeniat Mauguin^ who
naturally felt attracted to Gottuchalk's eido of the question- There
is much definite information in Hefel&'ji ConcilUngcAchiQMs,

Studies in John the Scot

in seculflx matters, were Bubject to independent
sovereigns, frequently at war one with another;
finally, the papacy, in the person of Nicolas I
(858-867), was putting forth claima as to jiiriadic-
tion and control wider and more definite than
had been announced before, for which justification
was found in the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which
probably originated with Hincmar s predecessor at
Rheims, the dispossessed Archbishop Ebo*. The
policy of Eincmar was bold, definite, and on the
whole, if not altogether scrupulous, fairly con-
sistent. He seems to have been throughout loyal
to the cause of the West Frankish kings — more
faithful to them, certainly, than they proved to
him. (In his insistence on the rights of the Galliean
Church against papal claims, he has been regarded
as the forerunner of Bossuet^ He is found on the
side of order and discipliue among the clergy, and
is not afraid of asserting a moral censorship over
the highest ranks of the laity. Here, howeverj we
are concerned with him in a character which was
not the most favourable to the display of his
greatest qualities— as maintainer of one of the
moat conspicuous theological controversies of his
time.

The great paradox of foreknowledge and free-
will has led to disputes of different character

' The pwrt probably taken by Ebo In tbe drawing up of tbe
foc^eriGB ia discuiased at longtb by Noorden in bia Hin^fmar Mrz-
hUehqfvon Ehetms, c\\^p,L

wmi

Scotus and PredesHnaiion

I aceording to the dogmatic or the speculative
I tendencies prevalent at different ages. Some of
I the cycle of questions, if we may so call them,
P which revolve around it are philosophical, and have
I no connexion with either theology or religion.
r f(Such ifl the problem of moral and responsible
[ human action in a determining environment, which
writera on ethics generally feel bound to meet^/ and
such, again, is the coexistence of a uniformity of
sequence in nature with apparently arbitrary acts
on the part of individual living creatures. Other
questions are suggested by a theiatic but not neces-
sarily a Christian view of Hfe. Such are the
difficulties which men have ever experienced in
a world full of wrongdoing, and of merited or
unmerited suffering, when they try to reconcile
the three attributes they must needs ascribe to the
Deity of omnipotence^ foreknowledgCj and good-
will. To Christians, agaittj belongs the task of
inquiring into the very bases of their faith and
practice. For — as the history of this controversy
in the ninth century shows—the strictest interpre-
tation of the doctrine of predestination precluded
the belief that Christ died for all, or that moral
living and the use of the Sacraments are of any
effect. It has been suggested that this connexion
of the whole question with that of the efficacy of
the Sacraments was the main cause of the intense
interest taken in it by the higher clergy of our
period, who were not, as a rule, men of great

Studies in John the Scot

phOoaophical or theological acumen, but who felt
it incumbent on them to keep the ecclesiastical
system free from assaults, either of erratic indivi-
dualism in doctrine or of license in action.

The controversy with which we have to deal
was almost entirely confined to the religious
aspects of the question. It is, perhaps, not a
singular feature in it that both sides claimed to
derive their chief support, after the Scripturesj
from the writings of Augustine. Yet there can be
little doubt that the really Augustinian spiiit
prevailed in the opponents, not in the allies, of
Hincmar. It is a significant fact that it is mainly
to the labours of a great Jansenist ^ that we owe
the greatest collection of documents bearing on the
controversy, since Jansenists, as well as Lutherans
and Calvinists, drew their inspimtion from the
same church Father whose doctrinej in its most
uncompromising form, was confidently appealed
to by Gottschalk when he expounded his theory
of double predestination.

It is almost superfluous to state that a mediaeval
controversialist did not regard it as pail; of his
duty to make himself thoroughly acquainted with
his opponent's meaning, or to realise all the bear-
ings of the opposite point of view. Attack and
defence are alike partial, or rather defence ia often

^ Gilbert Mauguin, who wrote about the middle of the seventeenth
century. On the Ze^m% side ib the great coiupilatioD of P^re
CeJlot.

Scoius and Predestination

little more than a Beries of isolated counter-attacks.
The result of this method^ — or no-method^ — is to
make it almost impossible to comprehend the views
of any party, especially when the principal works
of the heretic have been safely committed to the
flames. In this case there is the additional diffi-
culty that when either party feels a distant sus-
picion that he is going against St, Augnstine or
ceiiain cuiTent phrases of Scripture, he begins to
eat his own words and to utter palpable incon-
siatencies* He may be too dull to see that he m
inconsistent^ yet it is easy enough for his advei-sary
to show that so??i€ of his statements tend to subvert
all morals and all disinterested —-or even inter-
ested — observance of religion. If the question is
put in the form it generally, at that crisis^ assumed:
VDoes God predestinate both to evil and to good?'
the ordinary critical reader of St. Augustine would
be forced to set the authority of that Father on
the affirmative side, though he would acknowledge
that in many passages Augustine repudiates the
notion of a divine incitement to evil or of a neces-
sity which the human wiH cannot escape. The
point on which the whole controversy turns seems
to he the identity or heterogeneity of foreknowledge
and predestination ; and it is just on this point that
most of the controversiaHstSj Scotus himself in-
cluded, seem to contradict themselves. If we could
venture, without seeming unfair, to ascribe to each
party a maxim which nobody frankly adopted, we

Studies in John the Scot

might divide the attemptB to answer the question
into three types^ each representingj in general, the
kind of opinion maintained respectively by Gott-
Bchalk, by Hincmar and his adherents, and by
Scotus and his philosophic friendi.

The fii-st view is that foreknowledge and pre-
destLoation are practically coextensive in appli-
cation, and that aa divine wisdom foreknows both
good and evil, so divine power, from the beginning
of things, apportions what is good to the elect,
what is evil to the non-elect.

The second view is that foreknowledge and pre-
destination are quite different in meaning and in
sphere of operation. God foreknows good and evil
alike* bnt He predestinates what is good only-

The third view is that, since we are compelled
to associate in the closest connexion our idea of
divine wisdom and that of divine power, we cannot,
except figuratively and for purposes of convenience,
separate the whole scope of foreknowledge from
that of predestination. But that nevertheless God
does not predestinate evil, for He does not even
know or foreknow it, since it has no real being.
One cannot think of even omniscience as knowing
the non-existent*

A more or leas enhgbtened view is taken by the
upholders of any of these theories according as
they are able or unable to grasp— as Augustine
certainly did— the relativity of all notions of time,
and to consider — as apparently Gottschalk could

not — that the futurity of the knowledge waa not
an easential element in the problem. Again, the
identification, in the higheet existence, of eon-
sciousneas and activity, was a Neo- Platonic concep-
tion^ which did not commend itself to an untrained
Western mind. But perhaps, though our object ia
not to go further into the question than is necessary
to illustrate the attitude of Scotus to the men and
the thought of his time, a brief chronological
survey of the most decisive moments in the con-
troversy may bo conducive to a clearer appre-
hension of our general bearings,

Gottschalk was the son of a Saxon nobleman,
and being early intended for a clerical life, was
sent in childhood to the monastery of Fulda, where
he was instructed in theological learning, and in
due time received the tonsure. It may seem sur-
prising that this man, who was accused afterwards
of proclaiming doctrines inconsistent with free-will,
first made himself conspicuous by protesting against
the binding character of the vows which had been
forced upon him apart from his own will. He
succeeded in bringing his complaints before a synod
held at Mentz in the year Sag^ and obtained the
desired release. This proceeding was, however,
very obnoxious to the recently appointed abbot
of Fulda, Rahanus Maurus, a man of great repu- ■
tation for learning and for strength of wilh It is
not clear how an able superior should fail to see

* See Jt e«p€CJaJ.ly in Julian, Or»tiou IT, 1431, D.

Studies in John the Scot

the bad policy of retaining in the monastery a man
to whom the clerical profession was distasteful;
nor how it came about that Gottschalk, who, what-
ever he was, seems assuredly to have been no man
of the world, should feel ao impatient of a life
which, better than any other, allowed scope for
the exercise of atach litei'aiy and argumentative
tansies and high-strung religions sensibilities as he
undoubtedly possessed. The fact is undoubtedj
however, that Rabanus applied to the Emperor
Lewis the Pious for a revision of the sentence of
the eynod, and secured a decision confirming the
validity of Gottschalk's vows. It was not the first
time that this question as to the possibility of
a parent's devoting his child to the service of
God had been ai-gued before a provincial synod
and authoritatively affirmed* Gottschalk was, of
course, obliged to submit. He soon afterwards
removed to OrbaiSj in the diocese of Soissons and
the province of Rheims, and consoled himself for
Ms disappointment by plunging deep into patristic
lore, Augustine, Fulgentius, and Isidore seem to
have been his favourite authors^ and from their
writings he derived the material for his theory of
predestination. He showed no reticence in pro-
claiming his views as soon as he had reached them,
and by his intellectual activity and powers of per-
suasion seems to have gathered round him a small
body of admiring friends.

The next step by which Gottschalk incurred atHl

more diBapproval in high quarters ^ waa the accep-
tance of priest's orderSj apparently without the
sanction of his superior, at the hands of the ehor*
episcopus of Rheims, Richhold, The ckm^&piscopi
were an inferior rank of non-loealized bishops,
whose functions some of the higher prelates, notably
Hincmar, were endeavouring to curtail. The
normal course would have been for Gottschalk to
seek ordination from Rothade, Bishop of SoiBsone,
but for reasons that we cannot now discover —
certainly not from any evident devotion on the
part of Rothade to the ideas of Hincmar — he pre-
ferred to take a different line of action. His object
in seeking ordination seems to have been a desiire
to obtain the use of pulpits whence to proclaim his
views, since we find his activity as a preacher
mentioned in connexion with his journeys. He
had long been an eager correspondent of some of
the most learned churchmen of the time, especially
with Servatus Lupus, who was later involved in
the controversy, and who was ready to warn him
when he saw that he was going beyond his depth ^.

^ Hincmar (Z>* PraedesUrmtione Bisserlalio Fotierifir, cap* ii),
in narrating Gottsclialk^s Bubsequent degrodittion^ ea-je : ^ honore
prEflbyteriali quem per EjgUolduui Bheiiorum chorepiscopum, cum
ei£et SaeBBoniGiae p&rochiae monachuei, inBcio Qi\dtatis Huae ^piseopo,
1 QBurpAverat potiua quam acceperat, abicctua." It fleema to lie
(graierally euppoae^I that the ordination took place during the
vacancy in tb« epiacapate of Eheims^ diiring whicli the chorepuropi
exercised adminiatrative fbnctionv^ and wMcb ended with the appoint-
ment of Hincmar in 845 »

' W© find letters from Lupue to Gottsehalk in 5Iigiie^a Patrit-

Studies in John the Scot

He made a journey, possibly two journeys \ into
Italy, and it was on his return from his travels,
which he had undertaken without asking the leave
of Mb Bupei-iorj that his new troubles began. He
enjoyed for a time the hospitality, at Friuli, of
Count Efaerhard, and seems to have had oppor-
tunities of spreading his opinions in these regions.
One of those who heard them with inward oppo-
sition was Noting, Bishop designate of Verona,
who shortly afterwards happened to meet Gott-
schalk's early opponent, Rabanus Maurus, and
arranged wit]i him a plan of campaign, Rabanus
wrote a little treatise to Noting, and another to
Count Eberhard, neither of them, of course, designed
solely for the perusal of those to whom they were
addressed. Qln part, his ai-guments are those of the
plain maUj who sees in the doctrine of predestina-
tion to evil, as well as to good, an effectual check
to all human efforts in the direction of a moral
life; in part, tbose of a subtle theologian who
would mark out the distinctions between prescience
and predestination, and would discern a radical
difference between the assertions that punishment
had been preordained to man and that man had
been preordained to punishment

Unfortunately for Gottschalk and for the peace

* See Van Noorden'a arguments aa to what liappened daring the
first and second jonmey : ii, 56 et seq.

Scohis and Predesfmaitan

of the Church, Rabanua did not rest content with
verbal refutation. He had lately been raised to
the important soe of Mentz, and there, in the year
848, he presided over a synod of bishops — chiefly
from the kingdom of Lewis the German^ though
there seem to have been some LoiTainera among
them— before whom Gottschalk had to appeal'.
Unabashed by the rebuffs he had i-eceived in Italy^
whence^ according to his opponents, he had been
driven with shame, the accused monk appeared
and presented a confession of faith. We have it
as reported by Hincmar, but it probably represents,
without any qualifications, the views that Gott-
schalk proclaimed, or at least those which he ledfl
his followers to adopt : ' I, Gottschalk, believe
and confess, profess^ and testify in the name of
(ex) God the Father, by God the Son, in God the
Holy Ghost, and aflSrm and approve in the preaence
of God and His Saints, that predestination is two-
fold^ both of the elect to blisa and of the reprobate
to death j that as God^ who changes not, before
the foundation of the world by His gratuitous
grace predestinated Hia elect unchangeably to life
eternal, in entirely like manner the same nn*
changing God predestinated by just judgement
to eternal death, according to their merit, all the
reprobate who in the Day of Judgement are to be ■
condemned on account of their own evil deeds/
Besides stating his own belief and refusing to sur-
render itj Gottschalk seems to have gone so far as to

Studies in John the Scot

bring a countercharge of heresy against Ms learned
and famous superior and judge, Kabanus himsolf-
His condemnation followed, as might have been
expected, and he was sent back into the diocese of
Hincmarj to whom at the same time a letter was writ-
ten by Rabanos, setting forth the dangerous character
of Gottschalk's doctrine and behaviour, and com-
manding in the name of the synod and of King
Lewis, that means be taken to keep the mischief
from growing. The result of this was that at
a Council held at Chiersey in the course of the
next year, Gottschalk was again charged with
his heresies and irregularities, severely scourged —
without thereby being brought to a better mind —
and forced to throw into the fim that treatise
setting forth his notions which the historians of
the controversy would now be exceedingly glad
to possess. He was subsequently sent into strict
custody under the care of the Abbot of Haut-
villiers, since Hincmar did not feel sufficient con-
fidence in Rothade, Bishop of Soissons, to entrust
Gottschalk to his episcopal supervision — ^as be
would have had to do if Gottschalk had been
sent back to Orbais, At first Gottschalk was
treated with comparative lenity. He was ad-
mitted to communion at Easter, and allowed to
correspond with his friends. Efforts were made to
induce him to renounce his opinions, but without
success.

During the earlier part of bis captivity, Gott-

Scotus and Predestination

sehalk drew up two confesBions of faith \ These
are practically all, with the exception of some
slight poetical works, that we have straight from
his hand ; and whatever their logical consequeoces
may he^ they do not lay him open to all the
charges of his opponeota. In the first and shorter
document, he endeayonrs to support the doctrine
that some men are predestined to salvation and
others to damnation by citations of St. Augustine .
and Pope Gregory the Great. He borrowB the
term *gemina praedestinatio ' from St. Isidore of
Seville. But there is no trace of a necessity which
binda even the divine activity nor yet of predestina-
tion to sin. The larger confession is in the form
of a prayer — not very conducive to cleamegB of
argument and calmness of tone ^. The main
idea seems to be : that only what is good is
predestinated, but that the good may take the
form of benefits or of judgements — a doctrine
which may safely be regarded as Augustinian.
Furthermore^ he considers that if the reprobate
were not predestined to damnatioD^ even before
their periods of probation were over, the divine
intention concerning them would be convicted of
mutability* There is something hysterical and
declamatory about the whole piece, which culmin-

* TheJie have U^n reprinted in Mignejand are &l9o,aa atated above,
to 1)6 found in ArcMiighop Usflber.

^ We have ounous expresaiona snch aa ' lam tempai eat, Dominej
v«ridic& divinonmi Bubibi testimouia librorum^' &c*

Studies in John the Scot

ates in the eager deBire expressed to test his
professionB by the fourfold ordeal of boiling water,
oil, pitch, and fire.

Before continuing this word-warj which waa
being transferred to wider fields, we may in a few
worda dismiss the unhappy beginner of the fray.
He not only resisted all attempts to make him
recant, but brought a curious countercharge against
Archbishop Hinomar. This prelate had lately
changed the words of a h^onn, subetitnting ' summa
deltas ' for * trina deitas/ Gottschalk accordingly
accused Hincmar of Sabollianism. His mind
was probably brooding on the ' gemina praedesti-
natio/ and as he and his friends denied that the
phrase impUed two pTedeatinationB, they might
equally well assert that Hrina deitaa' was not
tritheistic, but strictly orthodox. Of course Hinc-
mar was equal to the task of defending himself.
Meantime he had composed a form of faith to
which Gottschalk waa to subscribe on pain of
excluBion from all the sacraments, Gottschalk
refused itj and died, an excommunicated captive,
in 868 or 869.

Meantime, others had taken up his cause, or
at least the defence of some of his expressions-
Prudentiua^ Bishop of Troj^es, wrote a long epistle
to Hincmar and his adherent and suffragan,
Pardulusj Bishop of Laon, in which he pointed out
the inconaiBtency of holding that God desires the
salvation of all men, that God is almighty, and

Scoitis and Predestination

that not all men are saved. Servatus Lupus, the
quondam friend and mentor of Gottschalk, wrote
a letter to King Charles the Baldj in which he
pointed out the inapplicability of time-duration
to the conception of divine knowledge. KatramuSj
the learned monk, in an ' epistola ad amicum/
justified the ^ gemina praedeatinatio," and dwelt on
the insepai-ability in the divine nature of thought
and action, Hincmar and Pardulus looked abroad
for partiBans, Among others, they thought of
John the Scot.

Two reasons may be assigned for the request of
Hincmar to Scotus that he should write something
against Gottschalk. In the first place, he was
anxious to have Charles the Bald on his side, and
Scotus was known to stand high in the king's
favour. At the same time he may have known of
John's studies in Dionysius through Hildwin, of
St. Denye, under whose patronage he had made
the earUest steps in his career, and who had, as
we have seen, done some work on the same subject.
Hincmar doubtless knew of John as an acute
dialectician, and possibly as a liberal thinker
above the limitations of a fanatic like Oottsehalk.
It is evident from the sequel that he had very
little notion of what John's philosophical views
really were. As to Scotus, he expressed pleasure
at being asked to write in defence of catholic
doctrine J and tried— vainly enough — to ward off
possible misunderstandings.

Studies in John the Scot

The treatise of Scotus, Be Praedestinatiovej is
not reaJlj a confutation of Gottschalk, with whose
views he seems to have been very imperfectly
acquainted- If it is said that he was nevertheless
right in attacking the immoral and impious con-
sequences that naturally flowed from Gottschalk's
opinions, we must allow that, in dealing with these
high subjects, the most virtuoua and reverent
of men have often laid down principles which the
dullest mediocrity would shrink to apply in
practice. Scotus himself fences and garbles, and
shows himself no better than an ordinary con-
troversialistj while his pen is dipped in gaU, more,
we may well believe, from fashion than from
feeling. Nevertheless, he certainly brought mew
elements into the discussion.

Scotus begins his treatise, De Divina Praedesti-
natione, by insisting on the use of the dialectic
methods of philosophy (Statperijc?}, opiGrrtKi^^ AirohnK--
TiK7}, and avaKvTt ktJ) in confuting heretics. He goes on
to argue against the doctrine of two predestinations,
which he seems to regard as involving the eleva-
tion of necessity into a force controlhng even the
action of God. {He distinguishes between prescience
and predestination, not exactly according to the
Angustiniaii line of thought, but from his own
subjective point of view. Though the being of
God is simple, the human mind can only consider
it in multiform fashion, distinguishing wisdom,
knowledge, activity, and the like. Yet each of

Scohis and Predestmation

these is one, and predeatination is one — a ' divine
name/ as Dionysius would have said. There is no
necessity above God, therefore what is true of the
divine will is true of predestination. Now what
is good cannot be the cause of evil, nor cmn the
sum of all being be the cause of what is destruc-
tive of being— sin> misery, and death. The term
* gemina ' must imply partition ; and since divine
predestination is the indivisible being of God,
contemplated in a particular aspect, it cannot
possibly be divided into parts.

Scotus goes on to accuse Gottschalk of combin-
ing Pelagianism with the opposite heresy, Pela-
gianism exalts free-will so as to leave no scope
for grace. The opposite heresy denies free-will
altogether. Gottschalk allows no room either for
grace or for free-will. But man has free-will as
part of bis nature, whereby he is made in the
image of God. He has not lost it by his lapse into
sin. The gift of God, which comes from the divine
bounty and may be withdrawn^ is the motion by
which the human will turns to the divine. Free-
will, though a great good, is capable of abuse. It
erra when it turns to itself, to the outward, and the
lower, rather than to God, to the inward, and
the higher This motion to evil is not of God, It
has no real cause or existence, as Augustine him-
self, in hia treatise, De Libera Arbitrio^ clearly
states. The perverted motion belongs to the will,
and to it alone. All sin is from free-will. Of

Siiidies in John ike Scot

course Scotus is able to see that he has only
pushed the difficulty a step or two further back,
since men will always ask : Why waa human nature
made capable of faUing? He can only give the
well-worn answer that without possibility of falling
there could be no free-will^ and without free-will
no honourable and reasonable service*

It is quite impossible for the casual reader of
St- Augustine to resist the impression that many
passages in that Father do distioctly assert
predestination to misery, and that some of the
harshest features in the doctrine of predestination,
such as the damnation of non-elect infants, from
which alike the Greek and the modem mind have re-
coiled, are to be foimd in his writings. Scotua has
to explain away statements that seem to represent
man as having lost free-will by his fall, and others
that would bring evil within the range of pre-
destination. In the latter case, he boldly declares
that Augustine is using the figure of speech called
by logicians an entkymsme — that all his words are
to be interpreted * a contrario ' or ' translative.' This
may seem to us an abuse in transferring to the field
of definite controversial theology the method of
symbolic interpretation, a method quite applicable
in regions acknowledged to be far above all
argument.

Scotus insists that temporal relations can only
be figuratively applied to any divine action, and
dwells briefly on punishment as being cloiiely

Scotus and Predestination

bound up with sin, not an arbitrary infliction which
follows it. He does not, however, enter as fully
here, as in the last hook of Be Blvimone Naturae,
into his optimistic view of the final beatification of
all existing creatures and the destruction of that
which has only the semblance of being* He seems
to regard the eternal fire as only corporeal in
nature, though very subtle, and the spiritual bodies
of the wicked as capable of sufiering everlasting
tortures. But he is evidently more consistent with
himself when he takes a purely spiritual view of
the final dispensations of divine justice^ and regards
as the real and bitter punishment of the evil will
an eternal necessity of accomplishing the service
which it has vainly striven to reject. But if we
seem to find him, when he h trying hard to make
his doctrine agree with that of Augustine, guilty
of some disingenuousnesa^ there is nothing out of
character with his general range of ideas in his
indignant protest against any doctrine which may
seem to refer the existence of evil to the will and
the nature of the Supreme Good.

This treatise, as might have been expected,
caused a small earthquake. We are less surprised
that it made men indignant than that it was treated
in some quarters with supreme contempt. 'Per-
versity' and 'insanity' were among the mildest
terms applied to its doctrine by Prudentius, Bishop
of Troye8 \ who wrote a lengthy treatise against it,

* HiB work IS in Migne's Patrolo^iaj toL ciet*
F 3

Studies in John ike Scot

accuBing the author of aeventy-Beyen distinctly
heretical utterances* Prudentius represents the
plaiB man who is irritated with Scotus for twisting
St. Augustine into accordance with his own views,
and is justly vexed with expressions and ideas that
are beyond his range of comprehension- He could
not take in the conception of God as identical with
I Hia predestination, nor that of the retention of
free-will by fallen man as being engrained in his
substance, nor that of the negative character of pain
and evil. He can only make up for feebleness in
argument by violence in denunciation, The second
attempt to refute Scotus came from the Church of
Lyons, probably from the pen of the Archbishop
Remigius, In this work the counts of heresy
mount up to one hundred and six. The regard in
which Seotua is held may be judged from the
following extract ^ : ' Who (Scotus) as we learn from
his writings, has no knowledge even of the words
of Scriptura And so full is he of fantastical
inventions and errors, that not only is he of no
weight in questions of faith, but even worthy —
considering the contemptible character of his
works — unless he speedily turns and amends him-
self, either to be pitied as a madman or to be
anathematized as a heretic/

Hincmar did not see fit to support the reputation
of the champion he had summoned to his aid, but,
with more prudence than generosity, cited the

^ ^ De tribtifl epistolia.' Mi^e, vqL ess.

Scohis and Predestination

words of the Wise Man^j that *lie that pasaeth
by; and meddleth with strife belonging not to
himj is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.'
The conflict, however, went on, and for a time
the Anti-Gottschalkian party was triumphant.
Possibly the alliance with Charles the Bald had
stood Hincmar in better stead than the less mun-
dane assistance of John the Scot* In 853 another
council was held at Chiersey, where, by the
management of Hincmar and at the express
command of Charles the Bald, four articles in dii-ect
opposition to Gottschalk's doctrines were drawn
up and signed. They ran thus: (i) That there is
only one predestination of God ; (2) That the free-
will of man is restored by grace ; (3) That God
wills all men to be saved ; (4) That Christ suffered
for all. To each of these an explanatory comment
IB added. Thus under the first, predestination is
distinguished from prescience; under the second,
man is said to have lost his free*will by Adam, but
to have recovered it by Christ ; under the tlm-d it
is explained that some men through their own
fault are lost ; under the fourth, that the healing
cup could cure the woes of all^ but that some
refuse to drink of it.

If these ai'ticles had been presented to Scotus,

he could, no doubt, have subscribed the priucipal

[theses simply, the commentaries only * translative/

[For as we have seen^ he did not hold the distinction

^ ProT. xivr, 1 7.

Siudies in John the Scot

between predeetinatioii and foreknowledge ; he did
not believe that the first man had forfeited free-will
for the race; he could not have agreed that the
Eternal Will ever failed of its object, or that for
any men Christ had died in vain. Yet this belief,
or clumsy compromise, as it may seem to us,
between predestination and a more human theory of
life, was all that the Galhcan Church could oppose
to the uncompromising fatalism of Gottschalk.

The Synod of Chiersey did not have the last
word. An opposition was organized by Prudentius
of Troyes, and vigorously led by Eemigiua of Lyons.
In 855 another synod was held at Yalence under
the auspices of King Lothaire. A dispute between
rival princes was curiously intermixed with decisions
OB the most recondite of theological questions. The
four articles of Chiersey were reversed ; nineteen
propositions from the work of Seotus were pro*
nounced heretical ; and the partisans of his belief
were censured in no measured terms ^

The decentralized character of the Church at this
time cannot be more distinctly seen than iu the
diametrically opposite decisions of two independent
synods, Hincmar made an efiFort to obtain a papal

^ * IneptikB Atitem qtioe^tiuncul&s et auiles pene fabulaa^ Scotorum-
que pultea puritftti fidei nauaeam inferectes, quae , . . usque »d
flCiBgioiiem caritatts mlB^mbl liter et la^tytimbillter auccreveruQt . . ,
pemtaa reBpuim^is/ Hefde, C^^ncllienijmehUhUt voL iv. 456,
Other mentions of Septus in the decrees of this Bjnod may bs Been
in UsHherj chap. 3lu, and in Flosses Intn^dactioa to Seotus' Db
Fraedesiinali^ie^ p. 354.

Scotus and Predestination

decision on his own side, but Hincmar and his
policy with regard to the authority of metropolitan e
were not in favour at RomOj and no quite distinct
utterance Beems to have come from the papal chair.
After more tumultuary synods and more persiBtent
efforts on the part of HincmaTj who composed
during the latter pai't of the controversy two
voluminous works on the subject, the Synod of
Toncy, in 860, reaffiimed the Articles of Chiersey,
and for a time, at least, the conflict seemed to have
abated.

The Gottechdkian controTersy did not lead to
any schism in the Churchy though it brought to
light seeds of discord which might have rent
asunder a more consoUdated body than the Church
of the ninth century. Wearisome enough in its
plentiful crops of bad arguments and half-sincei-e
interpretations, the dispute has some interest for
our present purpose in marking out clearly the
fundamentally different standpoints of the detached
philosopher and the professional theologian. But
besides this, it ih important to the student of.
mediaeval history in suggesting the question :
Where, at this period, lay the supreme authority in
matters of faith and doctrine ? In the papal see,
the Isidorian decretals might declare. But the
views which they embodied were not universally
accepted, Hincmar is accused of respecting or
discarding them according to temporary motives
of policy. In national synods, the metropolitans

72 Studies in John the Scot

might affiim. But as yet nationalities were only
in course of formation, and boundaries were always
shifting. Even if it seemed right and fitting that
Lorraine should accept double predestination while
France held that it was single, what were Christians
to think who lived on the frontier? Gottschalk
and Scotus were, from opposite points of view,
more thorough-going than the others in their tests
of truth. Each proposed a fourfold way: Gottschalk
the ordeal of boiling water, boiling oil, boiling-
pitch, and fire ; Scotus, the logical methods of
diaeretic, horistic, apodictic, and analytic. Perhaps
neither way would seem to us quite adequate to the
occasion, but that of Scotus is, at least, the more
civilized of the two.

)HAPTEE IV

SYMBOLISM AND SACftAMENT, PART TAKEN BY
SOOTUS IK THE EUCHABISTIC CONTROYERSY

BKiwopttv ykp dprt St* laowrpotf ^v abflyfmn.

The predestioarian controversy had served as
an interesting illnatration of the principle laid
down by Scotua— that religion and philosophy are
fundamentally the same. It may be regarded as
a confirmation or as a refutation of that principle
according to our point of view; For while it had
shown that a want of familiarity with philosophical
terms and abstract conceptions rendered incoherent
all utterances and arguments on the deepest prob-
lems of religions it had also shown that an attempt
to deal with such problems in the light of Greek
philosophy^ and to solve them by the approved
dialectic methods, was not only unintelligible to
those engaged in building up the fabric of mediaeval
theology, but was regarded by them as being in the
highest degree presumptuous and unsafe. The
results arrived at on both sides might seem to be
capable of expression in phrases by no means

Studies in John the Scot

mutually contradictory, Eiren the literaiy style
and the nature of citations from approved wiitera
might seem to have points of strong r^erahlance ;
yet below any superficial likeness was the deep-
seated division between two conflicting tendencies,
two essentially incompatible views of reason and
authority, of the strength and the weakness of the
human intellect.

No less do these remarks apply to the other great
controversy of the century, that relating to the
nature of the Eucharist. In one sense this dispute
may be thought to lie on a different plane from the
former, in that it belougs exclusively to theological
and religious ideas, and can never, apart from such
ideaSj occupy the mind at all. Yet, like the question
of predestination, this one has naiTower and aJso
wider beings. Those who argued for single or
double predestination saw, or might have seen, that
they were only on the fringe of the great mystery
of man's relation to his environment, a mystery fai*
older than the religion they professed j and similarly
those who dii^puted as to the kind of change
effected in the sacramental elements by priestly
consecration showed, by the ground they took,
how they conceived of the proper fnnctions of
symbolism in helping towards the least inadequate
conception of txaiiscen dental objecta*

From this point ofview, the ancient controversies
of the Greeks as to the use and abuse of the popular
mythology are connected with the question before

US, Plato, as every one knows, would have elimi-
nated all stories which gave an unworthy notion
of divine beings from the education of the young
citizens in his ideal state. The Alexandrians
would have retained them, and e^^plained away
or reinterpreted in a moralized sense theii^ seeming
incongruities. Yet both would press symbolism
into the service of truth. Indeed, though questions
as to symbols and sacraments may not belong to
philosophy apart from reHgioUj any philosophy
which takes account of the religious consciousness
— still more any practical philosophy which seeks
to regulate in harmonious co-operation the con-
flicting forces of mind and character — must be
constantly occupied in distinguishing the legitimate
from the overstrained action of the symbolizing
faculty in man.

There are other points of resemblance between
this controversy and the one lately considered.
Here, as there, the material and the spiritual are
opposed ; our philosopher, of course, taking the part
of the spiritual, but at the same time going so far
beyond the others on his side as to spiritualise
matter itself, and so put himself out of sympathy
with both parties^ It seems hardly necessary to say
that here, as before, we have St* Augustine quoted
on both sides, though in this field he may seem to
be more fairly appealed to by the allies of Scotus
than by his opponents. And once more we have
very tangible, practical, worldly questions^ com-

Stiidies in John the Scot

plicated with those Eaturally belonging to a high
region of thought* For as a strict Tiew of pre-
destination had seemed to tend to a disparagement
of eeclcBiastical rule, sacramental efficacy, and
sacerdotal authority, still more did any theory
whichj in the mind of the ordinary Christian, aeemed
to diminish the astounding change made in sacra-
mental bread and wine by priestly consecration
threaten to relax the hold of clerical authority on
the life of the laity. It seema more natural, even,
that Hincmar of Kheims should oppose John the
Scot in this controversy than that he ahonld have
appealed for his aid against the strict predes-
tinarians.

Yet for the student of the controversy, and es-
pecially of the part taken in it by Seotus, there is
a great practical difference, in that we have no work
of Scotns written with the dii^ect object of refuting
the opposite aide. If he ever wrote such a book —
a much disputed question, to which we shall have
to return — it has hopelessly perished. Those who
have studied the controversial work of Seotus in
the previous disputCj and compared it with what
we should have gathered as to his opinions on the
subject from his utterances in his more constructive
treatises, will by no means regret this fact. In his
various works, especially his Commentaries on
Dionysius, his De Divimone Ifat'iirae, and his
fragment on the Gospel of St, John, we have ample
material for constrnetiDg his views on sacraments

Symbolism and Sacrament 77

and ajrmtiola, without the difficulty of having to
allow for the conscious or unconscious warping
of the mind necessary in any who holds a brief for
a case, while he reserves some private opinion of
his own,

Eutj indeed, if Scotus had been less explicit, we
should have been able to conjecture his general
attitude from bis relation to the Neo-Platonic
philosophy in general,and fcoDionysius in particular.
From what we have said as to the Neo-Platonic
conception of the Deity as unknown and unknow-
able, yet communicating something of itself to the
human mind by virtue of the divine element in
man and in nature, it follows that all knowledge of
the aupersensuous must necessarily be clothed in
symbolic form — must be presented in such incom-
plete and fragmentary ways as render it capable
of being gmsped by the receptive souL And every
soul will derive more or less knowledge and
strength from symbolic utterance and sacramental
usage as its own individual position in the upward
path to purity and light is advanced or backward.
It may be said that if the Neo-Platonists had found
BO sacraments ready to hand, they would have had
to invent some. But such were already in existence,
and growing in influence ; firet, among the Hellenes,
the various mysteries, especially the newer ones of
oriental origin ; later, the two, or three, or seven
Sacraments — according to the yet undefined method
of reckoning«-in the Christian Church,

Studies in John the Scot

All recent inquirers into the history of Pagan
ritual^ have dwelt on the peculiar importance
attached to the ancient mysteries during the later
phases of Hellenic and of Imperial times, and the
readiness with which foreign rites of mystic sig-
nificance were adopted in the Graeco-Koman world.
The developments which they describe are con-
sidered as a response to the needs of an age which
had grown cosmopolitan in its culture, philanthropic
In its ethica, and eclectic or pantheistic in its
religious beliefs; which retained the old national
cults from patriotic and conservative feelings, but
sought the satisfaction of its private religious
aspirations in a more exciting ceremonial^ and in
doctrines involving a wider hope. At the same
time, writers on the early history of the Christian
Church^ have shown how, at a quite early period^
the conceptions^ and even the language, applied to
the Pagan mysteries were transferred to the most
sacred observances of Christianity. Of course the
mystic element in all cults is but loosely con-
nected with the authentic history of their origins,
or rather, the real historic origin is often obscured
by the aetiological myths invented to explain
pieces of ancient rituaL But whereas in the Pagan
mysteries, the old-world superstitions — interesting

* See, among omny ather authorities, Percy Gardner on * The
Myaterieia ' iti tlie M^n'^^l of Greek Antiquiii^, hy Gitrdner juid
Jevonft; and Jean E^ville in th« liftli chapter of Fart lot La Edigum
d Bome sous Im Sir^es.

^ Notablj Dr. Edwin Hatch, id theHlbbert Lectures for iSS8«

Symbolism and Sacrament 79

enough to the modern anthropologist— which first
gave rise to the secret rites practised at EleusiB
or at Pe&sinuB, were overlaid or lost to the later
worshipper, the original actions and intentions
of the earliest celebrants of the Christian sacra-
ments, though in matters of detail they leave wide
scope to the archaeologist and the historian, are
sufficiently well known to a§brd some touchstone
for checking the accretion of superstitious fancy
and for limiting the field of legitimate development.
Thus the power of symbohsm is not much
lessened by the growth of a rationalism that brings
its unsparing light into the obscure comers of
pseudo-historical origins or pseudo- scientific uses.
Its danger — in so far as, in a natural and healthy
state, it is a power for good — lies rather in the
ignorance which overlooks symboKc meaning and
can only distinguish between the tangible and the
unreal. And if the mysterious is reduced to the
tangible it descends to the rank of the magical.
Those who believe in the necessity of symbolism
'or all religious worship and religious thought can
only save it from a childish degradation by enlarg-
ing the sphere of the symbolic till it comprehends
all material things in so far as they bear witness
to the spiritual, and by refusing to regard as a
reality any phenomenon by which such witness^
cannot be borne.

* For the diitiuctlon between mydery &iid t^mbol proper ie<s
ScMitW C<>mmcnt. oi» 8t, Jn.^ Floss, pp. 344, 345.

Studies in John the Scot

NoWj according to Scotus, a sacrameDt or mystery
is an expression of hidden truths by actions as
well as by words, A symbol pure and simple
is an expression by words only, as an allegorical
phrase, or a parable like that of Dives and Lazarus,
The difference, however, does not aeem to lie very
deep, for the eye accustomed to symbolic views
finds a sacramental significance in every part of
nature and of human history, A curious illustra-
tion of the close resemblance to be traced between
the Pagan Neo-Platonists in their treatment of
mysterieSj and the Christians like Dionysius in their
view of symbols and sacraments, ia seen in the
similar attitude taken up by both towai^ds in-
congruous or grotesque compaiisons, Thus Julian *,
in his Oration in honour of the Mother of the Gods,
justifies the repetition of the strange story of
Cybele and Atys, commemorated in Syrian rites,
by showing how far more likely such stories are
to stimulate a search for occult wisdom, and to re-
main M^tbdrawn from any superficial and material
significance, than those which are clothed in mora
sedate form. And Scotus^ following Dionyeius,
dwells in very similar fashion on the value of
the avoixQiov in the ascription to the Deity of the
passions of humanity and the properties of the
material creation.

This view is worked out, with regard to the

* Or. V, 170.

^ Uomment&ry on B» Cod* Ilm\ ii, par« 3,

Symbolism and Sacrament ^i

several sacraments, in the treatise of Dionysius,
De Evdesiastica Hierarchia, First, he gives in
each case an account, of great intereat to the anti-
quarian, of the rites and ceremonies attending the
eelehration of each in turn. Then he proceeds to
give a mystic meaning to every part of the ritnal
practised. The commentaries of Scotus, so far as
they are extant, do not comprise this work; but
it was translated by Scotus^ and there is no
reason to suppose that he did not agree with its
contents.

We may take as hearing most distinctly on our
subject his description of the communion or synaxis*,
which latter word he explains, not in its usual
interpretation of a gathering of Christians to cele-
brate the Eucharistj but as a bringing together
of the scattered, discordant elements of human
nature into the divine unity. In bis opening
remarks he shows with what deep reverence he
regards this ' rite of rites/ without which no other
is complete. This superiority is, however, not due
to miraculous change in any material objects, but
to the fact that in it is commemorated the central
idea of his religion, the communication of divine
life to the human souL

The parte of which the ritual consists ai-e as
follows: the priest (—Upipxn^) offers a prayer
before the altar, where incense is burned, and
makes a procession round the choir of the church ;

' De Eceles. Eierureh. iii.
4i

Studies in John the Scot

he then begins a psalm, in which all the clergy
(the whole ecclesiasiical ordea-^ not the laity) join ;
next comes the reading of a portion of Scripture
by the deacons ; afterwards all catechumens, ener-
gumens, and penitents depart ; the doors are shut,
and the bread and wine are placed on the altar
while another hymn is sung ; the priest offers
another prayer, sends the pax round to be kissed,
and recites certain sacred words ; then he and all
the clergy wash their hands, and after a prayer
of thanksgiving he consecrates the elements and
displays them to the people ; be then communicates
himself, and invites the faithful to do the like ;
ihen follows the giving of thanks, and the con-
gregation regard the mysteries, while the priest
himself is rapt in holy contemplation.

To each pait of this ceremonial Bionysius pro-
ceeds to attach a religious aignifleance, the central
action of the whole corresponding to the partici-
pation in the divine naturej which is possible to
man through the Incarnation of the Logos.

While we cannot trace in the description by
Dionysius any foreshadowing of the doctrine of
Tmnsubstaoitiation, he seems equally remote from
the conception of the Mass — of a sacrifice offered
by the priest on behalf of the people. True, we
find germs of two of the three kinds of sacrifice
distiDguished by Robertson Smith and by all who
have since written on the subject— of the thank-
offering, and of the mystic union with the victim —

but not so muclij perhaps, of the piacular gift for
atonement. The various parts of the service — the
prayers, the sacred reading, and the commemoration
of living and dead — are not treated as if M^holly
Bubsidiary either to the conBecration or to the
oblation of the elements*

If we turn from Dionyaius to Scotus, we find
the same sacramental theory^ based on a eimilai*
conception of the relation of the divine to the
natural and to the humaiL In one sense, all nature
is mysterious and of sacramental meaning : ' there
is, I consider, nothing in the visible and material
world which does not signify somewhat immaterial
and reaaonable^v* The institutions and doctrines
of the Church show forth symbolically what cannot
be shown in any other way. Baptism and the
doctrine of the Incarnation are thus taken together,
* When any faithful persons receive the sacrament
of baptism, what happens but the conception and
birth in their hearts of God the Wordj of and through
the Holy Ghost? Thus every day Christ is con-
ceived in the womb of faith as in that of a pure
mother, and is born and nourished ^/ His opinion
aa to the necessity of Baciumenti is not entirely
clear, since he regards their material element as
merely temporary, though closely connected with
their spiritual significance. He caUs baptism * the
saci-ament by which we are reborn,* yet insists
on the need of faith for the efficacy of that sacrar

Studies in John the Scot

ment *, And of the Eucharist he says : ' For we
also, who after His iacarnation and passion and
resurrection have believed in Him, and understood
His mysteries, as far as is possible for us, do both
in our spirits sacrifice Him, and in our minds — not
with our teeth — eat of Him^,* And again ^, *0f
these things (i. e. the aacrifiee and triumph of
Christ) the eacred symbols are now celebrated,
while what was formerly known to our minds
appears to our eyes, since the pious mind tastes
inwardly the body of Christj the sti-eam of sacred
blood, and the ransom-price of the world {'pr^tiwni
rtiundiy This last passage does indeed seem to
point to the idea of a piacular sacrifice, but there
does not seem to be any reference to the euchai'istic
celebration as the actual offering of a sacrifice.
The extract is from an Easter hymn, in which
Christ is regarded as the self-offered Paschal lamb
of which the celebrants figuratively partake.

Having obtained some notion of the general
teaching of Scotus and his school as to the sacra-
ments, and especially as to the Eucharist, let iis
pass on to inquire into the aspect in which this
subject was viewed by the men of his time, and
the reasons why his opinions came to collide with
those of Hincmar and other great churchmen of
his day*.

^ Comm. Et\ sec. loh.j Fla«a, pp. 315-31 8.

* Ibid,, p, 31 i.
' Be Faschatej 11, 61 -4, p* 1326 in Floaa.

* Of CDUfse the grawth of the Catholio couceptiotL of the Euchamt

Symbolism and Sacrament 85

The question of the day was aa to the change
made in the Bacred elements by consecration. The
term transubataTitiation was not yet currentj but
the result of this controversy was to cause the
prevalence of the conception involved in that word.
The belief that a change {ix^ra^oKj}) took place in
the bread and wine was generally held, but the
specific nature of the change was for centuries left
indefinite. In 496, Pope Gelasius declared: 'esse
non desinit suhgtantia vel natura panis et vim/
At the same time, the sacrament is spoken of both
by Greek and Latin Fathers aa a sacrifice. This
language, however, seems to be figurative and
somewhat vagne. It seems to be agreed that the
celebration of masses to ransom the souls of the
departed was not practised before Gregory the Great-

The sacramental controversy of the nioth cen-
tury is generally taken to begin with a treatise
published by the monk Paschasius Radbertiis, who
was Abbot of Corbie from 844 to 85 ij and therefore,
most probably, a senior contemporary of John the
Scot, In his treatise, De Corpore et Sanguine
Dtmiini ^, he expounded what may be called the
nltra-sacramentarian vieWj and prepared the way

fills a Urge part in ^1 the Gliiirch Hifitoriea. For a clear ^(K>tiiit
I may eHpecially refer to KartZ| tranalated by Edersheiui, voL i,
p. 337 et seq.j And p. S^^ ^^ ^eq.^ ftnd to Qieaelsr, vol. li^ Eriglifth
tTOTiBlatioD, p» 4S et seq.j and to Noordeu as before; also to
CbeetliAm's Church Hiatoryj pp. 574, 375,

^ It is puUiBhed m Migue's Fatrolo^lUt vol. exx^ pp. 1267-
1350.

Studies in John the Scot

for the doctrine whicli the Church of Eome after-
wards authorized, and has ever since maintained
aa the comer-atono of her fabric. He inaiats that
the change in the elements at consecration is that
of complete transformation into the body and blood
of Christ, the very same body that was born of the
Virgin Mary, and the same blood that flowed in its
veina. The change has not been made apparent to
the outward senses, because the consumption of
the body and blood would be impossible if there
were no disguise in the form. Not being patent
to the unfaithful, the change diffei*s from a miracle,
and is more conectly called a mystery. Neverthe-
kss, for tho conviction of infidels, the change has
more than onco been made in palpable fonn.
Yiaions have been seen of a new-born babe under
the hands of the consecrating priest, and an un-
believing Jew was once nearly choked in trying
to swallow the holy bread* Some of the details to
which the application of the principle leads are
materiaJistic to a degree which may to moderns
seem disgusting, and others are exceedingly puerile,
yet the inward action of the received elements is
described aa purely spiritual ; the participation is
'per fidem/ not *per apeciem,' and the opposite
school might agree in the definition ^i sacrmiwniwm
as *quidquid in aliqua celebratione divina nobis
quasi pignus salutis traditur,' though they might
demur to what follows: *cum res gesta visibilia
longe aliud invisibile intus operatur, quod saiicte

Symbolism and Sacrameni 87

accipiendum sit/ We may observe that a trace is
seen of the vaguenesa still surrounding the number
and nature of the SacramentSj in that both the
Incarnation and the instruction by Scripture had,
as with Dionyaiu8 and Scotus, a sacramental
character ascribed to them,

But in spite of this generality and vagueness,
and of the denial of any miracle in the mystic
change, thei-e seemed to many of RadbeHus's con-
temporariea, as to writers of a later day, something
materialistic and superstitious in the main prin-
ciple of the treatise. At the same time, the ex-
ceeding importance which it would give to the
function of the officiating priest, and the increased
importance it assigned to sacramental observance
on the part of the laity, would naturally commend
it to those who saw, not merely their own pro-
fessional interest, but the order and well-being
of Christendom bound up in the maintenance of
a strongj dignified, and venerated hierarchy. We
are not, therefore, sui'prised to find Hincmar of
Eheims on the side of Radbertus, At the same
time Eabanus Maurus, the great opponent of
Qottschalk, wrote on the opposite side. Another
controversialist who had taken pai^t in the other
dispute, Eatramnus the Monk\ opposed the doc-
trines of Eadbertus, and is therefore apparently, this
time, on the same side as John the Scot. He is^

' His l)ook i De Corpora ei Sanffuii^t Domini h in Migne*fl

Studies in John the Scot

howe'ver, not bo bitter as to ahrink from giving the
appellation ' quidam fidelium ' to those who hold
opposite views from his own.

Meantime a royal theologian had appeared, at
least as apectator of the combat* The treatise of
Radbertus had been addressed to CbarleB the Bald,
and that of Ratramnus was an answer to two
questions which Charles had put to him on two
salient points of Eadbertus's teaching. These were
(i) do the elements, after consecration, contain an
occult power recognized by faith but not by sight 1
and (2) is the body of Christj of which the congre-
gation partake, the actual body that was born and
died ? To the former of these questions Ratramnus
seems to return an affirmative answeij to the latter
a very emphatic negative. Yet some of his ex-
pressions seem compatible with very high sacra-
mentarian views : ^ The body and blood of Christ,
which are in the Church received by the mouth of
the faithful, are figures according to visible form,
but according to their invisible substance, that is,
to the power of the Divine Word, they are in truth
the body and blood of Christ/ But again he says :
^ What the Church celebrates is the body and blood
of Christ, but as it were a pledge, an image/ ' A
pledge and an image have reference, not to them-
selves, but to something else.' And he calls atten-
tion to the other signification of ' corpus Domini '
in which it stands for the whole company of the
faithful.

Symbolism and Sacrament %g

These extracts are sufficient to show that on
neither side waa the doctrine held in a form which
has prevailed through the centuries, and that it is
futile alike for Protestants to adopt Eatramnus as
their forerunner and for Roman Catholics to appro-
priate Badbertus. NevertheleeSj there ia a real
difference of view between the opponents. One
cannot help regarding the conflict as being waged
between idealism and materialism, though the
idealists appeal to occult changes which seem
almost to aavonr of magic, and the materialists
maintain the spiritual aspect in so far as they
confine sacramental efBcaey within the dominion
of faith*

For a timej the rival views were maintained in
smouldering hostility, but they broke out into
energetic conflict in the middle of the next century.
The views of Batramnua were upheld by Beren-
garius of Tours; tho^e of Radbertua by Lanfranc,
Archbishop of Canterbury* Berengarius considered
himself to be a follower of John the Scot : ' If/ he
wrote to Lanfranc\ 'you make a heretic of John,
whose opinions on the Eucharist we approve, you
will also make heretics of Ambrose, Jerome, and
Augustine, not to mention others/ But the Church
was now under the more centralized government
of the great reforming popes who were carrying
out the ideas of Clugny. In 1050 Berengarius
was coodemnedj though not present, in a council

The paflBsge ia quoted by Gie^lsfj, vol. ii, p. 399.

Sf tidies in John the Scot

held by Leo IX in Bome, and latei- in the same
year by one at Vercelli. In spite of the favour in
whichj for a time, he believed himself to stand
with Hildebrand, it was under the pontificate of
Gregory YII that he was again condemned at a
synod held in Eome in 1059. Here he consented
to subscribe the following recantation: 'I, Beren-
gariu3, do anathematize every heresy, particularly
the one by which, hitherto, I have brought shame
on myself. * , . I agree with the Holy Roman
Church that the bread and wine which are placed
on the altar are, after consecration, not only the
sacrament, but the real body and blood of our
Lord Jesu3 Christ ; and that sensibly, not merely as
sacrament, but in reality, it is handled by the
hands of the priests, broken and ground by the
teeth of the faithful/ From this confession, how-
ever, Berengarius took flight as soon as possible,
Another war of words and documents followed,
and in 1079 there was another condemnation at
Rome, and another confession extracted from Beren-
garius, whichj however, he abjured with all speed.
He met, nevertheless, with a very lenient treatment
at the hands of Hildebrandj and was allowed to
retire to the island of St, Come, near Tours, where
he lived in respect and honour till his death in
1088, and was afterwards revered as a kind of
local saint, an annual feast being celebrated in
his memory.

The last word had not yet been said, but the

Symbolism and Sacrament 91

most salient doctrine of the Roman Church had
been declared in a council held by the greatest
pope of the Middle Agea. And here, again^ the
philosopher John is on the side of the retrogrades,
who are cited in favour of Greek mysticiBm by the
last opponents of mediaeval and Latin sacra-
mentalisni.

This laat decisioOj howeverj was not made till
a hundred years after Scotus was dead. To what
extent was his influence, actual or posthumous,
felt during the contest "J

Two facts are patent r that Scotus did not think
of the Sacraments as did those whose opinions
finally prevailed; and that he was appealed to
as an authority by one set of controversialists,
vehemently denounced by the other. But there is
a narrower question^ of literary interest and very
much disputed : Did Scotua actually write a book
on the Eucharist Controversy ?

Three answers may be propounded to this
question: (i) that he wrote a book which has not
come down to us j (2) that he wrote the treatise
commonly attributed to Ratramnus ; and (3) that
we have no reason to suppose that he wrote any
book at all ; while it is probable that both Mends
and foes took the treatise of Eatramnus as his,

The chief reasons for supposing that Scotus
wrote a separate work on the subject are the
following ; In the first place we have the words of
Hinemar in the second treatise, De Praed^i-

Studies in John ike Scot

witione^^ that according to the opinion of John
the Scot^ the ' sacrament of the altar ib not the
real body and the real blood of the Lord, but only
a memorial of Hia real body and real blood/
It is said^ that this expression does not exactly
coincide with anything to be found either in the
extant works of Scotus or in that of Ratramnus,
Whether conBciouB or unconscious manipulation
might produce such a form of words is a question
to be left to experts.

Then again we have a treatise by a certain
Abbot Adrevaldiis who was alive in 870; *De
Corpore et Sanguine Chriati, contra ineptias Scoti ^'
This, however, is merely a jejune exposition com-
posed almost entirely of quotations from Seiipture
and the Fathers, and equally adapted to refute
the ' ineptiae ' of Scotua, of Ratramnus, or of any
one else who bad written on that side. More to
the point, in the judgement of competent critics, is
the evidence derived from a treatise Be Corpore
et Sanguine Domini^ in which is expressed, without
direct reference to Scotus, the view of those who
regard the elements as ' signa corporis et sanguinis/
a more mystic conception than that of Ratramnus.
Then we know that a book purporting to be by
Scotus was condemned at Vercelli^ and that

^ De Praed. Dii8. Post, c. iixi.

^ By Noorden^ who treats the whde quMtion in a Tery caz%ffil

^ Printed is tbe Spi^leffitim of D'Achery, voU i p, 150 et eeq.

Symbolism and Sacrament 93

Eerengariua regarded himself as a follower of
Scotus, with whose other writings, boweverj he
may have had some acquaintance.

No one famihar with the style and the thoughts
of Scotus can helieve that the treatise bearing the
name of Katramnus was really the work of our
philosopher- In an uncritical age, however, it is
not impossible that men two generatiotiB removed
from the controversy, or even some late contempor-
aries of those who had begun itj may have been
misled into the notion that Scotua had written
the book, especially if Katramnus and his friends
wished at first, from prudential motives, to keep
the authorship secret ^ Whether there were two
distinct works or not we most regard as an open
question. But we cannot doubt that if there were
two, they must have been very dissimilar in tone
and contents.

We see, then, that in this, as in the predestin-
arian controversy, the gi^und occupied by John
the Scot was beyond the reach of both conflicting
parties. He seems equally beyond the reach of
parties that have striven against one another in
disputes of a somewhat similar character in later
days. Neither Janaenista nor Jesuits, Calvinists
nor ArminianSj can claim him as an ally in their
polemics on predestination ; neither those who

^ Thifl aigutueDt ia iia«d bj Gieseler, voL ii. p. 2S6. But I fail
to reconcib it with the faot that it waa written in answer to queationB
toaked by Ch^lea tbe Biild,

Studies in John the Scot

exalt nor those who disparage the efficacy of the
Sacraments can find consistent support in hie
pages. With paradoxes which his opponents called
* ineptiae * he warded off the attacks of foes and the
misundei^Btanding of friends. ' This wicked man/
some might aver^ * would limit the powers of the
Almighty by saying that He has no knowledge of
evil/ ^ How/ we imagine him to reply, ^ can power
be limited by absence of knowledge of the non-
existent 1 ' ' He denies that there is such a thing
as sin or its punishment, and thereby removes
the terroi-s which restrict men from wi-ongdoiog/
' But what can be more terrible than privation of
the only real good? What more fearful punish-
ment than hopelessness of ever attaining to the
vision of God 1 * And in the second controvei-sy ;
' Thia profane man says that the holy sacrament la
a mere sign and pledge, not a divine substance/
' But what is the glorious sun in heaven but a type
of the divine glory? This whole umveraCj in its
beauty and harmony^ is but a sign and symbol of the
beauty and harmony which lie beyond all sensual
perception/ Yet if those who attach no great
value to external ordinances would claim the Scot
as a forernnneFj they would find even less sympathy
from him than he showed for their opponents.
When reformers had done their utmost to weed out
superstitions and to make the doctrines and rites of
the popular religion as simple and as intelligible as
possible, they would find that Scotus and his friends

Symbolism and Sacrament 95

stiU regarded those doctrines as symbolic in ex-
pressioB^ those rites as mysterious in purport.
For to such thinkers a religion without symbolism
and mystery would be a contradiction in terms.
To the pious mind of this type, all life becomes
Bacramenbalj not by the degradation of the institu-
tions in which the sacramental idea is coneentratedj
but by raising all the act:^ and paasions and experi-
ences of humanity into an intimate relation with
the supersensual life. The Sacraments, like the
whole hierarchical order, serve to bring the lower
into communion with the higher. But the degree
of participation depends on conditions which are
individual and subjective* *As many as are the
souls of the faithful, so many are the theophanies/
It might be eaay to show that religious symbolism
in the Middle Ages did not always wear so sublime
an aspect. Allegory run wild is destructive to clear
thinkhig and to ciitical interpretation of words and
thoughts. The strained interpretations of Scrip-
ture, the unscientific explanation of ancient usages
to which Scotus and his school continually resorted,
are apt to blind us to some of their strongest
mmts. For, after all, their system allowed more
free scope for the development and exercise of re-
ligious thought and feeling than any other current
in their own or posBibly in any other time. It pre-
cluded alike a slavish attachment to mechanical
observance and a scanty ritual without suggestions
to stimulate the spiritual imagination. While

96 Studies in John the Scot

attributing supreme importance to theological
knowledge, it was quite free from the trammels of
a doctrine that, professing to be perfectly clear, and
to hint at nothing beyond its own categorical state-
ments, must needs become unintelligible or even
absurd to minds that realize the limits of definite
assertion. In sacrament and symbol there is, as
Scotus said, both a temporaiy and a permanent
element, and the perennial life can most safely be
embodied in 'forms that favour the periodical re-
discovery of half-forgotten truths.

CHAPTER V

SOOTUS AS OPTrMIST

*BQt yet we tra*t that somohow good
Will be the HhaI goal of m/^TaiiNTauN.

It has already been sufficiently pointed out that
the principal ecclesiastical coutroversieB with which
the name of Scotus is associated were none of his
own seeking, nor were they concerned with problems
which he had set himself to solve. The questions
whether predestination is single or double^ and
wh&t is the precise change undergone by the
sacramental elements in the process of priestly
consecration, would probably neyer have troubled
his mind if they had not been directly presented
to him for solution. But there were other diffi-
culties, some of them quite beyond the ordinary
mental walk of his ecclesiastical contemporaries, to
which be felt himself obliged to devote the full
powers of his intellect and many hours of toilsome
effort. It was not, as a rule, the greatest of all

Studies tn John the Scot

questions, m an undisguised form, that drew
controversial works from the pens of Hincmar,
PrudentiuSj or Flonis. To them, for instance,
there would not have been much difficulty in
trying to conceive how an unchangeable Deity
could have brought into existence a mutable world,
or how that world should fail to reveal in eveiy
part the trace of its divine origin. The plain man
knows that if he were in the place of the Almigbty,
he would very much like to create a universe, and
that if, by any slip, some adverse element should
have intruded, he wonld be ready with some device
for its expulsion. He may think it a puzzling
matter to decide why, in this world, merit often
meets with scant reward and vice goes unpunished ;
but hia feeling of justice is satisfied by the assurance
that some day all caaes will be reheard and many
dooms reversed. The ancient problems concerning
the one and the many, rest and motion, the material
and the spiritual universe^ do not torment him.
The plainest man, who has any religion at all, is
bound to have a teleology and a theodicy of some
kind or anotherj but it is likely to be crude and
inconsistent* The philosopher must have his in
more subtle fornix yet it would be rash to say that
he, more than his humble neighbour, has ever
attained to consistency.

The difficulty which Scotus felt in approaching
the problem as to the final goal of all things, and
the way in which it is reached^ appears plainly in

Scotus as Optimist

that parL of his dialogue between master and pupil *
where they pass to the consideration of the un-
created, non-creating, into which all things are
finally to be resolved. The master gives warning
of the dangerous sea, strewn with wrecks and abound-
ing in unseen dangers^, on which they are embark-
ing, and the pupil, who presents throughout the
type of the indefatigable inquirerj declares himself
ready to venture^ and prepared to eat the bread
of wisdom in the sweat of his brow* It seems that
ScotuB conBjdered the whole subject of creations in
relation to its first cause, to the primordial ideas,
and to the microcoBm man, as quite easy to deal
with in comparison with that of the final con-
summation.

We have already seen how the philosophic stand-
point occupied by Scotus involved an optimistic
view of the universe generally. Jor he held that
the ground and substaoce of aU things is good^
that what we call evil is merely a privation of
good, and haa no positive existence. This is not
what is commonly signified by the term optwiimh
which may roughly be defined aa a belief in the
ultimate triumph of good over eviL Some such
belief is veiy earnestly maintained and worked out
in detail in various parts of Scotus* writings. But
the nature of the ultimate triumph expected must
differ with the way in which the difierence between
good and evil is regarded. If evil is only apparent^
^ De Bit* Nat, iv. a.
H 2

loo studies in John the Scot

the victory of good consists only in the clear
maiiirestatiDo of the good as being alone possessed
of reality. This is practically asserted by Scotus
when he speaks of the moment of final consumma-
tion as the time of the appearance of truth : ' ilia
die, hoc oat in apparitione veritatis ^'

Perhaps it might be possible to reduce all the
procesaes which Scofcus traces as leading to the
purification and perfection of the whole creation into
the manifestation of hidden truth. Even now,
aocording to bis fundamental principle, God is all
in allj but God is uot realized as being all in all
©xoept by a few highly privileged souls -, The
annihilation of evil, then, from this idealistic
standpoint, is nothing but the clearing away of
intellectual or spiritual obacurity. Even the
eternal punishment of wilful sin seems to lie in
the revelation of its futility.

But besides the Christian or theistic need *to
justify the ways of God to man/ or the more
vaguely human desire to show that this universe
13 the best possible of univei^es, Seotus feels the
necessity of bringing into his philosophy the old
tlieory of cyclic involutions. The ideas of moral
restitution and of a completed harmony are blended
in his iniiid. The motion and return of the heavenly
bodies* the regular recurrence of tides and seasons^
the tendency of all things in nature towards some
end which is also a beginning, symbolizes or ia

' D4 Dir. NaL v. ja.

Ibi4f iii 2<k

Scotus as Opt must

i&t

identical with the strirings of man towards a
blessed and eternal life. Even in the arts the
eame tendency ie manifeat. Dialectic revolves
around being, arithmetic around the nioDad^
geometry around the figure. The resolution of all
things into their original elements is the whole
process of nature. Applied to man, it signifies the
return of his being into God, But since, for man,
to pai-ticipate in God is to live in perpetual con-
templation of the Divine glory, and since the
siibstance of all things is eternal, the Tision of
the beatified universe with which Scotus presents
us is not that of a vast sea in which the peculiar
qualities of all things are absorbed in a never-
ending monotony, but of a perfectly harmonious
composition in which all creatures live in unity
yet without confusion of individual being.

If we were in the position of the * Discipulus *
there is a question we might desire to ask. Granted
that all things move in cycles and return to their
original elements, yet their return does not result
in a perpetual quiesceuce, but rather in renewed
movement. Following the analogy^ when ail things
are resolved into the primary cause of all, will
there be again a fresh departure, a new ci-eation,
perhaps another apparent reign of evil, only to be
overcome by another procession or incarnation of
the creative Logos ^ 1 But we may imagine the

* I have known a clever chUd who asked whether, if the planets
were inhabitedj a Chrirt had died im eaoh.

Studies in John the Scot

^ Magister ' replying, with scornful wrath^ that we
had not yet diverted our mLnds from temporal and
even spacial relationSj which have uo application
in speculations of this kind. Or he might tell us
that this was a mystery into which we were not
able to penetrate.

Another difEculty might arise from the very fact
that time is no more than a condition of our cogni-
tion of material things. It may seem to us that
as no series — however numerous — of intermediate
beings could bridge the distance between creator
and created, the infinite one and the finite many,
so no number of aeona of perfectly and evidently
harmonious order could obliterate the fact that
there was ever, even in semblance, an element of
discord. If, for one second, any man or demon felt
one unsocial instinct or performed one malicious
act, that moment would be as destructive of the
theory of the ' best possible universe ' as if the
world had lain for ages in the power of the Wicked
One* This objection might seem to be met by
assigning a purely negative character to evil, but
to some of ua it may appear that the difficulty is
thereby only pushed one step back*

One other interesting point in connexion with
sin and its annihilation, as expounded by Scotus,
may be pointed out here before we take up the
main line of his theory. It is well known that
the later Graeco-Eomana, who drew from their
philosophy maxims for daily practical life, especially

Scot us as Optimist

J03

the Stoics, such aa Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus,
sought to soften the resentment naturally aroused
against unsocial and unreasonable people by in-
siBting on the involuntary character of all wrong-
doing. * Thou art injuring thyself, my child,* says
Marcus in imagination to a man who is seeking to
injure him. For if the worst of men could realize
the beauty of goodness^ he would, by his innate
desire for happiness, seek it alone, and not deprive
himself of so great a good. Now Scotus, following
the words of St. Augustine, shows how all men,
bad and good, desire being, happy being, and
perpetual being, and avoid death and pain. If they
fall into death and pain, it must be by error^ to
which he assigns a large^ though not the whole
share, in human depravity. But though, in a sense,
he would make error the source of evil, no one can
be stronger than Scotus in assei-ting that sin comes
of self-will, of a turning from the true principle of
man to self as goal and centre V. There is, perhaps, .
no contradiction here. Sin may be chiefly due to
ignorance, yet that ignorance may be voluntary.

In the part of his ^eatise De Divwimie Waturae,
which deals with the restitution of all things,
Scotus transcribesj even more freely than in other
parts of his writings, copious quotations from the
Fathera— chiefly from the Greeks — Gregory of
Nyssa, Maxim us, Epiphanius, Origen (mth whom
he is here in intimate sympathy), and others,
^ Be Div. Nat* ii* 35, and Da praeik*tinatiQne, 6^

I04 Studies in John the Scot

though in two places where he quotes Ambrose ^,
he seema to show an almost nervous fear of be-
traying hia preference for the Greeks. Augustine,
of course, is frequently cited. Yet we constantly
feel, especially with the more lengthy quotations,
that they are rather employed to illustrate than to
support the pbilosopber*s views. Many causes
other than philosophic necessity had led the early
Christian writers, and those of the fourth century,
to dwell on the topic of the Last Judgement, and of
the new heaven and new earth wherein righteoua-
ness should dwell And as it is impossible to dwell
on such subjects without a plentiful employment of
imagery, we may often feel that in transerihing or
even expanding their words^ Seotus is interpreting
them 'translative.' This may account for some,
though certainly not for all, of the inconsistencies
which we find in treatises designed for men who
set a high value on authority by one who was
eudeavouring to weld together material employed
by the various authorities of Scripture, patristic
tradition, and the principles of the later Greek
philosophies.

It is impossibles in examining thia part of the
doctrine of Seotus, to distinguish clearly between
the restoration of the Creation to primitive unity
and simphcity and the recovery by fallen human
nature of its pristine dignity. But, indeed, his
conception of man as the microcosm, as an epitome

^ Be Die, JTaf. l¥, 1 7 i and also v. 3^

Scot us as Optimist

105

of that thought of God which constitutes the whole
creation, renders any such distinction superfluous.
Restitution in the wider sense is comprised in the
redemption of mankind and the purification of
human souls from sin. If we ask why such resti-
tution is required, what aigna there are of imper-
fection in the universe as we know it, we do not
obtain such an answer as a modern thinker might
give, in the prevalence of pain among animals, the
apparent loss of noble types, and the like. Rather
the imperfection is seen in the manifold chai-acter
of things^since the one is ever superior to the
many — and in what is regarded as the merely
contingent existence of material things, since sub-
stance is superior to accident ' We believe/ he
says, * that the end of this sensible world will be
nothing else than a return into God and into its
primordial causes, in which it naturally subsists ^'
And again ^ : * It (the creation) begins in a sense
to bOj not in that it subsists in its primordial
causeSj but in that it begins to appear from
temporal causes. For temporal causes I call the
qualities and quantities and all else that come to
belong as accidents to substances in time by
generation. And thus of these substances it is
said '* there was a time when they were not " ; for
they did not always appear in their accidents*
In like manner they may even now be said to be,
and they are, and shall be in truth and for ever.

^ Dt Dw. NiiL ii, U, * Ibid,, iii. 15.

io6 Studies in Joht the Scot

But in so far as they are said to be in their
acoidentSj which come to them from withoutj they
have no real nor pei-petnal being. Therefore they
shall be dissolved into those things from which
they were taken, in which in truth and eternally
they have their being, when every substance shall
be purged from all corruptible accidents, and shall
be delivered from all that does not belong to the
condition of its proper nature ; beautiful in its
peculiai' native excellences, in its entire simpljcity,
and, in the good man, adorned with the gifts of
grace, being glorified through the contemplation
of the eternal blessedness, beyond every nature,
even its own, and turned into God Himself, being
made God, not by nature, but by grace/ In this
passage Scotus seems unconsciously to slide off
from the consideration of the greater to that of
the leaser world, and finally to touch on tho idea —
to which we shall return — -that for the chosen
among mankind something better even than
restoration to primitive puiity is in store.

Before we pass to consider the manner in which
human nature is to be restored, we may notice that
Scotus has a notable tenderness for the animal
creation, and refuses to accept the authority of
those teachers who would deny an immortal soul
to beasts. He is inclined to think* that the
intelligence and the social qualities of the nobler
animals are due to some measure of participation
' Dt! Biv. NaL in. 3^.

Scottis as Optimist

107

in the divme life, which they cannot eternally
loBC, and that the contrary opinion has only been
preached as a wai'iiing to men prone to degi'ade
fchemselYes and become like *the brates that
perish,'

To come to man the microcosm, the human
trinity, madomi the image of God, but fallen from
its origin ajpppry, we have already seen that Scotus
attribut^Rnat fall to a self-willed turning away
from jpn'B proper nature and first principle of
bein|^r In following the story in Genesis, he givea
an^fflegoric interpretation to its several parts,
Dwing in general the commentaries of tlie
Rithera, especially Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus
the Monkj though sometimes showing how the
authorities differ and which view he personally
prefers. It may seem superfluous to say that the
Fall is not regarded as an event in time, nor
Paradise as a definite locality. Again and again
he recurs to the idea, on which Maxim us also
liked to dwellj that man before the Fall, or man
according to his divine nature, was sexless. The
division into male and female is a defect in
humanity. The story of the forbidden fruit is
interpreted as the leading away of the mind
(= the man) by sensibility ( = the woman), so as to
seek pleasure in the things of sense and not in pore
wisdom ^, The punishments inflicted have a hidden
mea^ning : — ' In sorrow shalt thou bring forth
^ Be Bi&, Nai. iv. tS et aeq.

loS

Studies in John the Scot

children^* pointa to the effoi^is neceasary for attain-
ing knowledge ; * thy desire shall be to thy hnsband^
and he shall rule over thee/ promiBes the ultimate
subjugation of sense by reason. The labours
imposed on the man have a purgatorial end, and
' thou shalt return * is spoken in hope. The return
is not by way of new creatioUj but through a
cleansing process, such as that which purifies from
leprof^y. When man can contemplate the Divine
Goodness, he attains restoration, for the image
remains in his nature even after the Fall ^,

It is evident that Scotua ia not among those who
regard matter as the one cause of evil, but he
paiily agrees with them in that he regards the
preference of the material to the spiritual aa being
at the root of all mischief, and also holds the
absorption of body in spirit aa a necessary step
towards rectification. Nevertheless he affirms, in
his peculiar sense, the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body, by which he would imply ^ not the
perpetuation of what is merely sensible and
fictitious, but the resolution of all that has any
being at all into purer elements. The 'death of
the saints * which is * precious in the sight of the
Lord ' is the absorption of the human soul in the
Divine ^^ for the death of the body is the first step
towards the liberation of the soul *.

The means by which the general restitution ia

^ Be Dh. NaL v. 6.
' Ibid., V. ai.

= Ibid., V. 2$.
* Ibid., V. 7.

Scotus as Opitmtsi

log

effected is, of course, the in carnation , or, more
properly J the humanizing' of the Logos. The
doctrine is set forth in several forms* Christ is to
be regEi^ded as a sacrifice which has been effectual
for all \ aa a priest and mediator, as the Ark of the
Covenant full of sacred treasures. But generally
it is as the Logos entering into human nature, and
thereby into the nature of all things which have
been created in man, and then returning to the
Father or First Principle, that He is regarded as
bringing about the final union. 'He went forth
from the Father and came into the world, that is,
He took upon Him that human natui-e in which
the whole world subsists ; for there is nothing in
the world that is not comprehended in human
nature; and again, He left the world and went
to the Father, that is, He exalted that human
nature which He had received above all things
visible and invisible, above all heavenly powers,
above all that can be said or understood, uniting
it to His deity, in which He ia equal to the
Father 2/

If we ask whether the restoration of human
nature carries with it the salvation of every human
soul, we cannot obtain a perfectly clear answer^ or
rather, we obtain answers which seem mutually
contradictory. For the doctrine of the eternal
punishment of the wicked is even harder to
reconcile with the teleological principles of Scotus

* Dt Div. NaL v, 36, p. 981, ' Ibid,, t. 35*

no Studies in John the Scot

than is that of a coi'poreal resurrection. We have
already seen, in considerbg his part in the
predestinarian controversy, how Scotiis had given
great offence in some quarters by practically
eliminating the arbitrary and also the material
element in the final punishment. Yet, on the other
bandj he eeema to spoil the harmony of bis own
system, by admitting as forms, or perhaps illustra-
tions of divinely mflicted penalties, both a tardy
and too late repentance and a consuming vexation
at the thought of complete failure in life* For if
repentance is purgatorial in character, as Scotus
seems to admit, and if it is accompanied by
acquiescence m a just doom, it falls far short of the
notion of eternal torment. And the anger at
having failed in evil projects, such as he ascribes
to tyrants like Herod, who are reluctantly com*
pelled to serve a good purpose, ia surely a species
of that malitia which, we are told, is with mi&eHa
to be utterly destroyed. There can be Httle doubt
that these suggestions are of an apologetic character,
and do not fit into the scheme as a whole. And
indeed, elsewhere, Scotus speaks of the parable of
Dives and Lazarus as bt^ng of the nature of an
allegory. What he contemplates, as far as, in
these highflown speculations, he can be said to
have a clear notion of the looked-for goalj is a
perfectly ordered universe, in which no sin or
desire to sin remains, and wherein each living
being enjoys that proportion of divine wisdom and

Scotus as Optimist

sit

happiness for which it is fitted. The home is of
' many manBions/ All are saved, though not all
ai'e deified* Again and again the doctrine is
insisted upon that no sv^hdanee can ever he lost.
* The thoughts of the mcked ' perish, because they
are but vanity. But in their innermost being even
the devils are good in that they are^ and a sugges-
tion is made, though not followed up, that Origen
may be right as to the final conversion of Satan
and his ministerSp

The consummation of all things involves, how-
ever, for maUj or rather for chosen spirits among
men J something far exceeding the blamelesaness of
the fii'st Paradise, For though, in many passages,
it is made cleai- that final restoration is to comprise
the return of all things into God, there is a special
sense in which holy men, after the discipline of
life, are to be deified and brought to perpetual
conteinplation of the highest theophany, or perhaps,
even above it. In a chapter near the end of the
treatise De IJivisione Maturae, v?e have the steps
of the ascent summarized by way of recapitulation.
There are three steps in the progress by which
effects generally are brought back to their causes,
four by which restored humanity is brought into
perfect unity, three more by which the perfected
and unified soul is brought into the incomprehen-
sible light ^. First is the change of all bodies

* De Div. I? at. v, 39 ; cf. the fivefold iheoriu of the ratJonal
creation iu v, ^i, and &I10 t. S.

113

studies in John the Scot

capable of aensual perception into their spiritual
causes ^ Next comes the restoration of human
nature to its primitive condition ^ by the divine
mercy, through the saving work of Christ* Thirdly
comes the sevenfold way by which the divinely-
chosen are to reach their ultimate goal* There are
four proeeaaea of unification of a lower kind : the
changes of earthly body into vital motion ; of vital
motion into sense; of sense into reason^ and of
reason into souL The three higher changes are
of aoul into knowledge of all things posterior to
God ; of knowledge into wisdom^ or close contemp*
lation of the truth ; finally the absorption of the
purified souls thus identified with purest intellect,
into the obscurities of impenetrable light, wherein
lie hidden the canaes of all things* The octave is
then complete, and the consummation attained
which was signified by the resurrection of the
Lord on the eighth day.

The final absorption of soulj apparently of all
consciousness, in the Supreme Unity, has struck
many writers aa being originally an Indian, or at
least an Oriental conception. There is, however,
no reason to suppose that Scotue borrowed, even
indirectly^ from Indian sages, and possibly their
Nirvana, however difierently interpreted from
different points of view, would be found dissimilar

^ In V. 8, in tlie case of hiunaiL bodies, tlie diiaoliitioii ^f body
into the four el«im^t« %nA lU reinrrection 9X% mode to precede tliii
change.

Scot us as Optimist

113

in many respects from his. It certainly cannot b©
confnaed with annihilation, rather is it to be re-
garded aa an entering into real existence. It should
be taken, perhaps, in consistencyj to involve the
elimination of all personal qualities and individual
life. But in all his works, Scotus guards against the
assumption that any confusion of separate existences
is implied in the ultimate union of all things* It
is hannony, not monotony, that seems to him the
star ting-p int an d th e goal of creation , The so venth
step seema to go further than any ever taken, in
the Dionysian system, by the moat exalted member
of the divine hierarchy \ since contemplationj and
that not directly of the divine, but of a theophany,
is the occupation of the first order, and if there is
an advance beyond the contemplative life into that
which is ' dark from exceBS of light,' man must
have risen immeasurably above all other creatures.
Probably Scotus would not have admitted such
a conclusion. In any case, with the enraptured
deecription of the apotheosis of the glorified soul,
the 'Magister ' ends what he calls the recapitulation
of this work — a description in which his readers
can by no means concur^without listening to any
more questions from his pupih He only adJs, by
way of apology, that his task has been a very
difficult one, that in this dusky life human studies
must always be imperfect, that truth is ever liable
to be misunderstoodj and that all we can do is to
wait. 'Let each one make the most of his own

114 Studies in John the Scot

view, until that light shall come which turns into
darkness the light of those who deal falsely in
wisdom and turns to light the darkness of those
who discern things rightly ^/

* De Biv. Nat, v. 40.

CHAPTER VI

SC0TU8 AS SUBJECTITE IDEALIST

* Cogito, erigo sum/ - Di:scAitTE3.

' Dum ei^go ilico Jntelligo me ease - . » et me esse, ei posae iotelli-
gere me ease^ et inteMlgere m« esse demoiwtro/

ScoTUfl, De Diii$imn N&inrae, i. 48.

Eten those who make but a alight acquaintance
with the literature relatjug to John the Scot become
impressed with the fact that in so far as he is
generally regarded by students and historians of
philosophy with respect and interestj it is because
of the analogy that may often be traced betweea
his views and those of quite modem thinkers* We
have already seen how in some ways he figures as
a link in the chain between Greek philosophy and
mediaeval thought. We have seen bow the neces-
sities of bis position forced him to take up a decided

* For Scottia' theory of cognition, and hia bearingfl tcwwrdfl con-
temporaiy and later iboiig))t, see the hooks mentioDed before,
ej^peciAl] J CbriAtlieb, the Mistoir^ da la FhUosophie ScafaH^*gve of
Hanr^an ; the GfichicMe dtr Logik im AhemUande by Prantlj i?oL ii ;
the Mutorif of FhflomGphy bj XJeberwtgi &c,

I 3

ii6 Studies in John the Scot

attitude in Bome of the great theological controvej'-
Bies of his day. To follow his doctrinei dawn into
later times, and eee how far they anticipate the
principles of transcendentaliata or of seeptics belong-
ing to our own times, has been a fascinating task to
some writers *. But as no one would suppose Scotus
to have directly influenced any modern school, that
task may seem rather a field for speculative in-
genuity and for practical reflection than an essential
part of an historical sketch. The philosophic dis*
putes of the centuries which immediately succeeded
that of Scotus might well come within the field
of any student of the man and his times, but even
here it is not easy to see exactly how far his in-
fluence extended. For in metaphysics as in theo-
logy, he was strangely misunderstood and accused
of spreading doctrines exactly opposite in tenor to
those which he was incessantly proclaiming.

The great danger in trying to realize the stand-
point in logic and metaphysics of a man who lived
not only in a distant age, but in an age which seems,
in a sense, off the path of continuous human pro-
gi'ess, is lest we should read the present into the
past, and attribute to the words of an ancient sage
meanings which did not belong to them till a mil-
lenium later. Still, the essential problems are there,
and it is impossible not to feel a rush of sympathy
towards those who have thought our thoughts, or

* NoUbly to ChristUeb, who traces analogies between Seotua and
Kftnt, Hegelj Ficbto, Sohellingj &c.

Scot us as Subjective Idealist 117

somethmg like themj long beforep If the analogy
between Scotias and Hegel is only evident to a few
select minds, the resemblance to Descartes— as in
the worda printed at the head of this chapter — must
strike the most casual reader. Yet we can hardly
fail, on fuHher inspection, to see that the meaning
of Scotus and that of Descartefi are not identical.

Still if, without drawing a close comparison
between Scotna and any particular philosopher of
modem times, we collect our general impressions
from a perusal of his writings, we find much that,
without any violence or perversion, aeems to lend
itself to modem modes of thought and expression.
We read of an unknown God and an unknown self,
the existence of which is postulated in every thought
and act, yet respecting which nothing can be
asserted. We have a phenomenal world, which
has reality in so far, and only so far, as it is the
object of cognition by intelligence* We see recog-
nized a principle of relativity in all knowledge,
which ever and anon checks us in saying * this is
so/ to make us add ' or so it is to me/ But we
are only safe, in our attempt to sketch, however
roughly, the views of Scotus as to the mind in re-
lation to a world of actual or possible experience,
if we keep as closely as possible to his own words
and to definite citations from his works V

' If on the metaphysical side Scatoa \m claimed bj tbe German
TransceDdentaliatfit, lie might, in his religiotii symboUsmj seem to
foreehadow the preaent-ditiy echool of liberal French Prote^tantiim,
esapecially aa represenied bj Dr. Sahatier»

Ii8

Studies in John the Scot

Now there is a curious passage near the be-

giimiDg of De DivMone Naturae ^ which seems
to be taken by commentators aa a theory of
cognition. He has begun his dialogue by giying
a very wide interpretation to Naivbre, so as to make
it include things which are not as well as things
which are. He then goes on to discuss the difference
between the existent and the non-existenL It is
to be noticed that he seems to include in ^ Nature '
that only which has at least potential or phenomenal
existence. At first sight he may seem to be clearing
the ground by getting rid of Non-being altogether,
but this is evidently not the case, as some of the
highest objects of thought are included under those
of which existence cannot be predicated. Neither
is he giving us a cross-classification to be used
alternately with that into creating - uncreat-ed,
creating-created, created-non-creating, and uncre-
ated-non-creating. For there is no homogeneity
in his new principles of distinction. It is not five
classes, but five modes of regarding things, with
respect to beitig and non-being, that he is giving
us« These sections ai^e therefore much cited by
those who treat Scotus from the metaphysical
point of view. They do not seem, however, to con-
stitute an important part of the treatise, and are
not, I think, ever referred to again.

In the fii-st place, we distinguish as being all that
can be an object of corporeal sensation or of intellect

* i. 3-^, witJi wluch cf. iiL z.

Scoftis as Subjective Idealist 119

tual perception. This would exclude on the one
hand God, who cannot be comprehended by mind
or sense, and to whom, following DionysiuSj we
aasign miperesse ; and on the otber handj any
absence or privation of discernible qualities (such
as blindness, or^ he would probably add, sin), unless
we consider them as somehow iocluded in those
things of which they are the privations or opposites.
The second distinction is harder to grasp. It
is based on the arrangement of all things in
a hierarchical order (for which we are again
referred to Dionysius) according to their partici-
patioji in the universal life, from the highest
spiritual intelligence to the lowest degree of
nutritive and productive activity. If we define
any of these ranks which come in consecutive
order, we deny with regard to the superior what
we affirm of the inferior, and vice versa. For
example, if we distinguish a man from an angel, it
is by making definitions of each and affirming in
each case of the one what we deny of the other.
Thus at the very top, and again at the very bottom
of the scale, we come to the end of the region of
being, since what is affirmed or denied of the order
cannot be denied or affirmed of a higher order in
the one case, of a lower order in the other. Now
the higher can comprehend the lower and also itself,
but the lower cannot comprehend the higher* The
comprehension of self as one of a series, diffeiing
alike from those above and those below, seems to

Shidtes in John the Scot

be taken as equivalent to aelf-conscicjuanesa* The
capability of being defined in a paiticular way
geeras to imply a conditioik of being in which any
creature h contained within intelligible limits. We
shall return to Scotus* conception of definition, or
locvSf later on. Meantime, we may take this mode
aa a distinction between cognized and cognizable
on the one hand, and neither-cognized-nor-cogniz-
able on the other, and observe how thought and
being are never diasociated in bis mind<

The third mode of distinction ia between the
actually and evidently existing and that of whicli
the being is as yet only potential — ^as all men were
potentially created in Adam, and the plant exists
potentially in the seed.

The fourth way is that of philosophers who
attribute real existence to that which is intellec-
tually discernible, immutable, and incorruptible^
and deny the actual being of what is material and
subject to change and decay.

The fifth is a theological distinction. Any creature
whiehj like man, bas fallen away from the divine
type in which it was created, has, in a sense, lost
its being, though restoration of the type and of
essential being have, for man, been made possible-

Though these distinctions are not entirely free
from obscurity, they seem generally to be con*
sistent with the principle that we are to acknow-
ledge, as having some measure of e^cistence, all
that of whichj with or without the medium of the

Scotiis as Subjective Idealist 121

senses, the mind can take cognisance. And we
also seem to have, though not ao clearly stated
here as elsewhere, the identification of real existence
with self-eonsciousness. The views here set forth
would not enable ns to call Scotus a subjective
idealist unless we could proceed to show that he
considers all that we call the world of things as
not only existing for the mind, but as being ac-
tually in the mind, and having no kind of being
except in relation to mind, *

We have pointed out that Scotus taught the
doctrine of an unknown God and of an unknown
self, both of which are in a sense objects of human
consciousness, though neither is circumscribed by
human intelligence. Let us notice here that he
does not acknowledge a third unknown in Matter
existing apart from Mind, The ' nothing * out of
whichj according to the Fathers, all things have
been made, is only to be taken as meaning negation
or privation of being \ Formless matter is not
perceptible by sense or intelligence, and the forms
by which ]t becomes apparent are themselves in-
corporeal in nature. The four elements, by the
admixture of which all bodies are created, prp-
ceed from the primordial causes which have their
being in the Word or Wisdom of God ^. Or again,
what we call matter or body ia recognized and
differentiated by means of a concourse of accidents,
and the accidents which make up the categories,
> De Difi. Nat HI 5, * Ibid., 14.

IS2

Sttidtes in John the Scot

as well as the categories themselves, which are
accidents of Qvaia, are incorporeal and intelligible.
Therefore in any interpretation or description of
the sensible world, we have not to do with anything
beyond the limits of pure mind. This may help to
explain how Scotus, aa well as the Greek Fathers^
could speak of the change of body into soul* They
did not hold the grotesque notion that really
existing bodies might be transmuted into really
existing souls. The change was only from one
form of mind into another, or perhaps from the
mode in which things had been regarded into
another mode.

The ascription of all reality in the external world
to mind is hai'dly intelligible unless we mean to
say that, for us at least, the external world is
resolved into modes of our own consciousness, that
is, of the consciousness of each individual creature
possessing consciousness. Scotus seems to leave
the question unanswered whether the world exists
for or in the particular or the universal intelligence ;
whether, that is, we are right in applying to the
individual mind what is said concerning mind in
general. Would he allow a plurality of universes,
seeing that each mind, by taking cognizance of
things, confers on these things somewhat of its own
reality? He would probably have excluded any
such conception by insistingj as he so often does,
on the essential unity of all mind, and the unity
of that human nature which, as we have already

Scotus as Subjeciive Idealist 123

seen, he regarded as a notion in the mind of God.
The pupil ^ in his dialogue finds some difficulty
in reconciling the latter statement with the assump-
tion of self-conBciousness as the essential element
in human nature, and that difficulty will probably
occur to modern readers* Without attempting to
explain it away, we may illustrate it by comparing
it with another part of Scotus' philosophy- We
have ah^eady cited his words as to the realization
of God by man: *As many as the souls of the
faithful, so many are the theophanies ^' This
principle would seem not only to make all religion
subjective, but to establish a kind of polytheism,
et we know that his belief in a plurality of theo-
phanies did not prevent Seotua from being a mono-
theist ; and similarly the manifold appearances of
the external world to the varieties of human con-
sciousness do not seem to contradict the supposition
of one world to which cohesion and harmony are
given by the action of the human intellect. His
views seem to be in the main derived from Diony-
sius. From him the words are quoted ^; ' Cognitio
eorum quae sunt ea quae sunt est/ Perhaps the

* Be Dhu Nat. iv, 7.

' May I be aUowed to cite the words of an idealist who was also
^ preacher? * Talk of God to a thousand ear», each ha« his own
different concept.] oti. Each man in this oongregatlon hiia a God
hefore him at thii moment^ who is^ aocording to hia own attainment
in gfXfdneSBf more or leas limited and ijnperfoot.' F. W, HobertBon,
Sermon*, i. 117,

= De Dir. Nat Yu 8.

134

Shidies in John ike Scot

old idea of Pi'otagoras ! * Man, the measure of all
things/ had vaguely floated down to hinij and be-
come combined with the conception of man who
has been made in the image of God, and therefore
18 endued with creative intellectual power.

We may observe here that it is the notions or
conceptions of things, not thiugB themselves exist-
ing independently of mind, that make up the
univci-se which the human mind ordains and unites
that it may use it as a dwelling-place. The word
notion waa coming to have its modern meaning^,
and the way was being paved for a compromise
between the Realists and NominaliBts, whose con-
troversies had not yet begun. But to this point
we shall have to return later.

However much obscurity . then, we may find in
the ontology of ScotuSj a few points stand out
clearly, and allow us to call him a subjective
idealist — and this quite independently of any
theory we may have as to his anticipation of the
' Ding an eich/ or of the distinction between ' Seyn
nnd Daseyn/ Things in general exist only as
belonging to the miod which cognizes them^ and
that mind supplies to them the attributes by which
they are diatinguished from one another, or are
made to fall into genera and species. Time and
spaoe are conditions in the mind of the thinker or
observer, not properties of the thinga conceived or
observed. The power of the mind thus to orderl

^ See i?e Dip. Hat. iv. 7 j p» 76S and eUewhere^

Scohis as Subjective Idealist 125

its universD of phenomena is due, in some inex-
plicable way J to its having its own existence in
what it may call (though accurate denomination
18 impossible here) the Highest Intellect — to its
being made in the image of God. This implies a
threefold existence of man— the human trinity —
as being, power, and activity ; and therein hie self-
consciousness consists. For he is conscious that
he has being, that he has power to recognize his
being, and that he actually does recognize it. The
world to which he gives intellectual unity is not
foimed according to his own will, but by the
operation of the primordial causes or prototypes^
which are to be thought of as volition and reason
at the same time ; and which, being of divine origin
and chai^cter, communicate life and being to all
creatiouj man himself included- The whole creation
is a revelation of God to those minds that desire to
contemplate Him but can only do so indirectly,
'But these things may be thought upon more
nobly and truly than they can be expressed in
language, and more nobly and truly understood
than they can be thought upon^ for more noble
and more tnje are they in reality than in our
understanding ^J

Bearing in mind these general principles, espe-
cially the close connexion of thought and being,
which seems generally to amount lo a complete
identification^ let us attend to a few utterances of
' De Dio. N^at- ii- 35.

126 Sf tidies in John the Scot

Scotus on the subject of knowledge^ and of the way
in which man can obtain it.

Since the intelligence of man is ^ man, and the
things which he knows exist in his intelligence,
the communication of knowledge from one man to
another is neither more nor less than the absorption
of one mind, to a certain limited extent, by the
other. *' Whoever, as I have said, entirely ^pure]
understands, becomes that which he understands, . > ,
We, while we discuss together, alternately become
one another. For if I understand what you under-
stand I become your understanding, and in a certain
unspeakable way I am made into you. Similarly,
when you entirely understand what I clearly un-
derstand you become my understanding, and from
two understandings there arises one, by reason of
that which we both sincerely and without hesita-
tion understand^/ If this passage were taken to
prove that Scotus had no clear notion of the pro-
found isolation of every human being regarded as
a conscious self, it would save us from the trouble
of looking for any marks of clear and deep thought
in any part of his system. But the stress which
he always lays on self-consciousness would lead
us to think that in this place he was not confusedj
but sensible of that profoundest of all enigmas.

^ Thi» Tiew may seem inconniatent with the streea laiil by Scotus
€in the Will and it« freecloEQ. Perhaps the power of volition la not
i^ored but rather implied in that of understanding.

^ Da Biv. Nat. iv. 9,

Scoius as Subjective Idealist 127

tJae practically realized intercommunioii of two
feeings, each of which ia a cosmos to itself, and
knows of nothiDg outside.

Knowledge, then, is a kind of mental assijnila-
tionj and the modes by which knowledge is built
up are the same as those by which the universe
is created. Analysis and resolution are log^ical
processes, yet they are also the means by which
the several parts of creation are brought down
from the Supreme Unity into multiplicity, and
finally restored to that Unity as their final end.
Dialectic is the greatest of the liberal arts, but as
it deals with beings genera, and species, it was
founded by God when He said: 'Let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind^/
Definition again, while it shows the locus (in a non-
spacial sense) of things and explains what they are,
is also ta,ken to be the boundary and circumscrip-
tion of the thing, God cannot be defined because
He cannot be circumseiibed. The higher nature
can always comprehend the lower ; thus the capa-
bility of defining, which in one sense is an art
belonging to the ivipy^m { — operatio) of the sonl^
and akin to dialectic, may from another point of
view be regarded as the power of ascending in the
spiritual sc^e, so as to obtain a wider and ever
wider range over which the faculty may be
exercised ^,

' Dfi Diu, Nat* va* 4,

' A large part gf £ook i of Bb Biv, Nai. ia doToted to loeut.

ia8 Shidtes in John the Scot

Thinking ia, of course, to Scotua, the highest
occupation of man, unless we exclude from its
sphere the contemplation of the unthinkable* What
creation is to God, that is thought to man. Scotus
tatea as lawful and necessary means to the attain-
ment and ordering of knowledge all that tradition
had handed down— the seven liberal arts and the
four logical methods — though, as we have seen, he
gave to some of these a pecuHar significance. We
have already dwelt on the fact that lie did not
believe in the possibility of coming, bj the use of
any kind of argumentation, to definite theological
knowledge. All that can be directly stated about
the Divinity must be negative. Yet a fruitful
suggestion is made that while we cannot say how
it is that some beings are eternal and others are
made, we can say on what principle we may call
them either etenial or made^ This would resolve
the science of theology into the study of human
thoughts about the Divine, and w^ould probably
include the determination as to which symbols
might be used, in theological laDgua^e, without too
much violence to truth* Free as is his use of
scriptural and patristic statements, he is not here
entirely subjective, but w^ould interpret according
to the 'fourfold division of wisdom* — practical,
physical, theological, and logical^.

The oonneaioii between the logic of Scobtia uid tbai of B(>ethius mAj
b« fltudi«9d m Pritntl, toI, ii^

1 Ufl Dm N^t iii i6, p. 670. ' Bijid., 2^

Scotus as Subjective Idealist 129

Yet beyond all knowledge, properly so-called, is
the realm of faith, and here^ as in the case of more
strictly cognizable things^ the object of contem-
plation muBt actually come within the human
mind, and be assimilated, before ita being can be
realized ^ ' God is also said to come into being in
the flonls of the faithfu]^ since either by faith and
virtue He ia conceived in them, or in a certain
fashion, by faith, begins to be understood. For, in
my judgement, faith is nothing else than a certain
principle from which the recognition of the Creator
arises in a reasonable nature/ We seem to have
here the doctrine of the Incarnation, presented
from an entirely subjective and individual st^tJid-
point^.

We have endeavoured to focus together sundry
passages from the works of Scotus — many of which
we had already cited — so that they might throw
some light on his views as to the great mysteries
of existence, thought, and knowledge. The result
has not been a qnite coherent picture, but possibly
those who think it worth while to familiarize them-
selves with the thoughts that teemed in the mind
of this earnest thinker will gradually find more
and more links by which the vai-ious parts of his
cosmology and theology are bound together. If,
after much study, they still find him obscure, they
would do well to see whether the darkness is due —
if we may use a favourite expression of Dionyaius

* Be IHv, If at i 71. = See above, p. 83-

t3o Studies in John the Scot

and of Scotus himself — to absence or to excess of
light. In either case they must acknowledge that,
whether self- consistent or not, he is always abun-
dantly suggestive.

But whether we of the nineteenth centuiy are
capable or not of comprehendiDg his phiJosophlc
attitude, it certainly was puzzling to the men of
the tenth and eleventh centuriea. The further
posthumous charges of heresy and the successive
conderanationa which went far towai'ds depriving
us of his writings altogether will be considered in
our concluding chapter. Here it seems desirable
to say a few words as to the hearing of his works
on the question of Universals, which began to be
agitated some time after his death.

Now here we are met with an unexpected fact.
In a chronicle of the early tenth century, ceilain
well-known teachers — Robert of Paris, Eoscelin of
Compifegne, and Amulf of Laon — are mentioned as
having taught that the art of dialectic had to do
with words, and that in that respect they were fol-
lowers of JohUj who ' eandem artem philosophicam
voealem ease disseruit ^! Now of course we can-
not be secure in identifying this John with our
Scotus, and at first sight it would seem quite absurd
to do so, since many of the passages we have quoted
prove him to have been a realist of realists. We
have seen that he regarded dialectic as a divine art,

* On the quesbionfl raised by ttiia pasaage^ se$ Poole, App. U, and
cf, Pjftiitl and Hftur^ftOp

Scotus as Siibjeciive Idealist 131

concemed with ohaia, and if he varies the descrip-
tion of it BO as to define it in another place as ^
'The study which investigates the common rational
conceptions of the mind,' we have here no nomin-
aiism, but a form of conceptualism. Nevertheless,
Scotua lays so much stresB on the importance and
significance of names^ that some historians — notably
Prantl— are inclined to range him among the earliest
of the Nominalists, Thus he speaks of grammar
and logic as being subordinate pai-ts of dialectic*
and yet as being concerned with words and expres*
sions rather than with realities^. Again, in alle-
gorizing the story of Adam giving names to all the
beasts of the field ^5 he says : ' If he did not under-
stand them, how could he rightly name them ? For
what he called everything^ that was its name; that
is to say, such is the notion of the living soul *»
He goes on to say that the notion of things in the
human mind is to be taken as the substance of
those things, and that similarly the notion of the
universe in the mind of God ia to be regarded as
the substance of the universe. Here, however, he
seems to have broken loose from names altogether,
except in so far as they are a necessary part of

notions. And elsewhere he

says

^^ * Whatsoever
> Ibid.

' De Dm. Nat i 27.

* Ibid. iv. 7,

' In the Vulgate the reading of Gen. iL 19 ia * omn© enim
(aut«m aptid Scot am) quod vocavit Ad&zn animae vhentU ipf am eit
motuen eiu8.^

* Be Die, Nat, I 14.

132 Studies in John the Scot

we recognize in names, we must needs recognize in
the things signiiBed by names/

It will probably be agi*eed that if the various
doctrines as to Universals, and the long controversy
between Realists and ^Nominalists form the chief
element in the Scholastic Philosophy, Scotus is not
to be regarded as the first of the Schoolmen. He
is free from the imputation of multiplying meta-
physical abstractions as well as from that of attach-
ing undue significance to names. As in the other
disputes with which we have seen his name mixed
up, he has his home in neither party. His ' soul
was like a star^ and dwelt apart' ; and because he
stands apart from his contemporaries and immediate
followers, he seems to find his natural place among
the free and lofty thinkers of all times.

CHAPTER VII

THE INFLUENCE OF SOOTUS. CONCLUSION

' A contemplAitiye life is raieed ftbove all that is tempovnX and
tinly an enjoyment of etenial tHngfl ; whoever, therefore^ wiahea to
lead su€li a life muet needs leave all that is temporal.'^ — Tauleb,

The infloence of a mediaeval mystic on his con-
temporaries and Bucceeaors ia liable to be both over-
rated and underrated by critics of later times. For
on the one hand, as w© have already had occasion
to suggest, the chief ideas of the mystic are gener-
ally developed within his individual conaeiouaness,
or, as he might prefer to aay^ revealed to his own
Boul, not learned from an instructor, though any
suggestions made by thoae who are going through
a similar process of enlightenment fall into his
inind as into a congenial soil wherein to grow and
fructify. Still, when we find mystics all over the
world and all through the centuries expressing
their ideas in simiJar language, we ]eam to be
cautious in saying that this man derived his prin-

134 Studies in John the Scot

eiples from that source, unless, of eouTse, he tells
us so himself. On the other hand, we in tbese days
of many books are apt to underrate the personal
influence of masters and teachers in the early days
of Western European culture. Rabanus, EatramnuSj
and other learned men whose names have become
familiar to us m connexion with the fortunes of
Scotus, were prolific writers* Yet probably the
power they wielded from the teacher's desk was
greater than that exercised in solitary writing,
The dialogues of Alcuin with the young Carolingian
princes may roughly indicate the kind of stimulus
imparted by oral teaching. The ' Discipulus ' of
Be BividoTie Naturae is not the sort of youth
that can have been common in those days, and is
even more advanced in learning than * Macaulay's
schoolboy/ The choice of the dialogue form to set
forth his profoundest doctrines may be merely due
to acquiescence on tbe part of Scotus in the notions
of his time. Yet his contemporaries may not have
been wrong in regarding actual conversation with
pupils as the natural means for communicating in-
struction.

And again, such communication of instruction by
no means eshaust^ the influence of a thinker like
Scotus, Those who came under his teaching, even
if none of them may have been as clever as
' Diseipulus/ must have acquired something of his
method of arguing, his ways of using scriptural and
patristic quotations, and his general tone of mind^

The Influence of Scotus 135

We do not know how long he remained at the head
of the School of Paxisj but the anxiety of his
opponents to displace him, and the demand of the
Pope for his expulsion testify to the importance of
his direct and indirect influence.

ThuB while we may doubt whether Scotus ever be-
came the founder of any set of thinkers^ and refrain
from attributing to a knowledge of his writings thoae
mystic utterances of thoughtful and unconventional
minds, whether orthodox or heterodox, which, in the
following centuriesj frequently recall his principles
and doctrines, we may well admit that a certain
undergi^ound influence worked on without recogni-
tion of its provenance till it found ita purest ex-
pression in the religious life of the Freunds Gotten
and ita authoritative exposition in the writings of
Eckhart and Tauler. The thought of God m the one
reality, of Evil as mere negation of Good^ of Sin as
SelfishnesSj and of Selfishness as the one distracting
influence that keeps man from realizing his great
capacities, of the individual and personal signifi-
cance of the doctrine of the Incarnation — these
ideas are translated from philosophical into popular
and practical form in the works of the Dominican
Tauler and in the anonymous Tlieologm Ge'^mmnica,
The writings of Scotiia, except, perhaps, some of his
translations of Dionyaius, were, for reasons which
we shaU see directlyj unknown to the men of the
fourteenth century. Yet Scotus had helped to keep
the eyes of the more apiritually-minded fi.xed on

iS6

Studies in John the Scot

great realities and mdifferent to mechanical obser-
vance. If but very indirectly, still in some measure
Scotus may thus have contributed to form the re-
ligious ideas of many German Lutherans, with
whom the Thmlogia Ge^i^^juirdca^ and the works of
Tauler have always been favourite books of religious
reading. But we must return towards the daya
less remote from his lifetime, and to what we can
safely regard as the direct fruits of his teaching.

During the later part of the twelfth and the
earlier of the tbii-teenth century, two independent
teachers arose whose doctrines were opposed as
heretical and publicly condemned. These were
Amalric of Bfene^ neai- Chartres, and David of
Dinant. We know something of what they taught
chiefly from those who in the next, or a later genera-
tion, narrated their condemnation or combated their
views ^, Amalric had taught in Paris, incurred
Buspicion among his colleagues, lost his chair, and
after a vain appeal to Pope Innocent III made bis
submission to the Chui-ch, It was not till laog,
three or four years after his death, that his doctrines
were formally condemned in a synod at Paris. Of
them Henry of Ostia writes : ' The dogma of the

1 The TheoIoffi<^ Germamca and some of Tanler^s aermons have
been very well rendered into English by Misa SuRanna Wink worth.

' A very good acconnt of these twe men, with faU oiUtions from
authoritiea ia given by Huber, p. 434 et E3eq. Of Amalric we knovr
chiefly from Cardinal Henry of Ostia and Martinus Polonus ; alaa
from Geraon : of David of Dinant &ani the centrevarstal writingH
of Albertnis Magnus.

The Influence of Scoius 137

wicked Amalric is compriBed in the book of the
Master John the Scot which is called periphy&ion
(L e* De Natura)j which the said Amab-ic followed ;
. , , and the said John in the same book cited the
authority of a Greek Master named Maximus, In
which book many heresies were contained, , . . of
which three may suffice as examples. First and
chief, that all things are God. . > . The second is
that the primordial causes which are called ideaiy
create and BX*e ci'eated. , , . The thu:d is that in
the consummation of the agea there will be a union
of the sexeSj or there will be no distinction
of sex, which union he says to have begun in
Chi-ist/

A closely similar account of the doctrine as con-
demned by Pope Innocent LEI is given by Martinus
Polonus, who lived about a hundred years later,
and affords a monument of bad Latin and of pre-
sumptuous stupidity, ^ We condemn that Amalric
has declared that the ydeas [dc\ which ai'e in the
Divine Mind create and are created^ whereas accord-
ing to St, Augustine nothing that is not eternal and
immutable is in the Divine Mind. He has declared
also that God is called the end of all things, , , *
That God is tha essence of all creatures and the
being of alL He has said also that to those in
charity no sin is imputed* Under which strength
of piety [or appearance? ope for speclel] his fol-
lowers freely commit all manner of iniquities. He
says that if man had not sinned he would not have

I3S

Studies in John the Scot

fallen into duplicity of sex, ... all whicb errors
are found in the book which is <isl\^ periphifsion.^
Martin us also quotes as among the heresies of
Amalric what looks like a travesty of some remarks
about human and divine parenthood in Scotus^-
A far greater man, John GerBon, of Paiis, refers to
Amalric and his errors, and knows, as Polonus
seems not to know, that the book ns^pX (fiva-imp was
that of Scotus,

The charge of antinomianism brought against
Amalric, and indirectly against Scotus, seems singu-
larly inappi-opriate, since that strange doctrine was
with more reason regarded as a natural consequence
of extreme necessitarianism, and of the tone of mind
found in Gottschalk and denounced perhaps even
too vigorously by Scotus,

David of Dinant, who ]s not known to have been
a pupil of Amalricj taught^ what he could hardly
have derived from Scotug. a s}' stem of materialistic
pantheism. He was condemned in good company,
as along with his works were prohibited some of
the recently introduced treatises of Aristotle.

This led to a more formal censure passed by
papal authority on the works of Scotus* We have
seen that long before, Hincmar had tried to bring
him into ill favour at Rome. We have also referred
to the letter of Nicolas I to Charles the Bald,
written after John had completed his translation of
Dionysius, The king is requested to send John to
» DeBiv. Kai.L i6.

The Influence of Scoius 139

Eome^ or at least away from Paris, lest he should
mix tares with the wheat, and give the people
poison for hread, a mixture of metaphors probably
due to imperfect knowledge of agriculture*

But it was not till 1225, soon after the affair of
Amalric and Dayidj that the final condemnation
camSj by a bull of Honorius III. It begins with
the same complaint as that of Nicolas, that an
enemy had been eowing tares among the wheat.
The pope had heard from the Archbishop of Paris
that a book called Periphyds had been justly con-
demned in a proviocial council as teeming with the
worms of an abominable heresy, * And since/ the
pope goes on to aay, * the book, as we have heard,
is to be found in various monasteries, and other
places, and several monastic and scholastic persons,
being unduly attracted by novelty, give themselves
eagerly to the study of the said book, thinking it
a fine thing to utter strange opinions — though the
Apostle warns us to avoid profane novelties — we,
in accordance with our pastoral duty, endeavouring
to oppose the power of corruption which a book of
this kind might exercise, command you all and
several, straightly enjoining you in the Holy Ghost,
that you make diligent search for that book, and
wheresoever you shall have succeeded in finding
the same, or any portion thereofj that you send it, if
it may be done with safety, without delay to us, to

* According to aitotber copy of the letter, only the book \n U^ he
sent to Rome, and there h no mentioD of Pans. Fiom^ p. 1026,

I40 Studies in John the Scot

be solemnly burned ; or if this is imposaible, that
you do yourselvaB publicly burn the same^ and
that you strictly exhort all who serve under jouj
that whosoever of them has or ia able to have in
whole or in part any copies of the said book, and
shall delay in giving them up to usj shall, in case
they have knowingly presumed to retain all or pai'fc
of the said book for fifteen days after this order
and denunciation shall have come to their know*
ledge^have thereby incurred the sentence of excom-
oiunicafcion, nor shall they escape the charge of the
abomiDation of heresy. Given at the Lateran, 23
February, 1235.'

'As lief kill a man as kill a good book/ Yet
after all a good book has more chances of resusci-
tation. De Divisione Naturtm fell into oblivion so
deep that it did not seem worth the trouble to put
it on the Index drawn up at the Council of Trent-
It was discovered later, and printed by an Oxonian, ,
Thomas Gale, in 16H1. But this led to its being
definitely placed on the Index of prohibited books
by Innocent XI, in 1685.

It may seem strange that a work thus condemned
should find its place in the great patrological series
edited by Migne* It is, however, not given without
a warning. In a short preface by Floss, we are
warned of the curiously double character of the
book — bow it is profitable in some partSj hopelessly
erroneous in others — and the bull of Honorius III
is printed in extenm.

The hifluetice of Scoitis 141

If the dread of John's doctrines felt by the
divines of the Middle Ages, and even by the
Catholics of the Counter-Keformation seema to us
nnreasonablc, and perhaps a little superstitious,
we should recollect, and reckon as a partial excnae
for this intolerance, what we have lately pointed
out: that the influence of a li^itor like Scotua
generally works underground, not by introducing
new doctrine, but by forming a new tone of mind-
The objections to his actual statements look puerile
on paperj and are often based on gross mis-
understandings, but the fact remains that the
whole spirit which animated Scotua was out of
harmony with that which prevailed in the Koman
Church, and would not have tended to foster a
tone of submissive acquiescence to constituted
authorities, whether in matters of ritual, faith, or
speculation.

In his theology and in bis ethics Scotus, as we
have seen, stands apart from most of the question-
ings which began even before bis day, and have
gone on into our own. We have seen how far re-
moved from bis system, for example, is any attempt
to prove the existence of a God. The ontological
proof of Anselm^ — that a conception of the Perfect
would be incomplete unless there existed the reality
of which it is a conception — might possibly have
been allowed by him, but all modem logicians re-
gard it as no proof at all Theologians have only
succeeded in composing some kind of argument for

142 Shidies in John the Scot

the being of God by first exiling Him fi-om the

world and from humanity.

By Scotua, God is neither proved by argument
nor accepted as a hypothesis, but recognized as
neceasary to the being of anything whatsoever* It
is the same with the Self, recognized in its acts,
judgements, and volitions, not proved by means of
them. It may seem, perhaps, rather to overstrain
his words, though it would, I consider, be a legiti-
mate development of hi3 principles, to say that Self
is cognized in every act of thought, and God is cog-
nized in every act of worship. This is not, per-
haps, a firm basis on which to build a Summa
Theologiae* The term attributes as applied to God
is to Scotus pure nonsense. But we are, he would
think, on safer ground when we discuss the appro-
piiateness of marking eueh-and-such attributes as
implied in our conception of Him. In so doing we
are only discussing the structure and character of
our own mind^ which must needs impose certain
characteristics or names on aU that it in any sense
conceives or believes in.

The essentially subjective character of John's
religion has already been dwelt upon, and we have
seen that it was inconsistent with the dogmatic
and the sacramental system of the mediaeval
Church* But while we recognize an inward
sympathy among the devout souls of all ages that
find the ultimate resort of truth in the depths of
personal consciousness, we must not overlook one

The Influence of Scotus 143

great difference between the religion of Scotus and
that of the most spiritual teachers of the present
day : with him the historical element in religion
was reduced to a minimum. It seems hardly too
much to aay that the historical Jesus of Nazareth
scarcely existed for thousands of mediaeval Chris-
tians- Christ was the Second Person of the Trinity,
enthroned on high ; or the Bread which had been
changed in substance in the hands of the Priest \
or — especially to Scotus — the inspiring and creative
Word, which brought order out of chaoB in each
Christian soul. Religious minds have not found these
three conceptions mutually exciusiye, nor does any
one of them prevent the recognition of one Man as
having, at one moment in history, appeai'ed in the
world and begun a new religious era. It would be
as idle to blame Scotu^ for wanting a philosophic
conception of historical Christianity as it would be
to complain of his not discerning the principle of
evolution in the physical world \ But it is con-
ducive to general clearness of thought to recognize
the fact that the mystic point of view needs to be
accommodated to the historical at least as much as
to the dogmatic.

In ethics, no less than in theology, Scotus stands
apai-t from most philosophers^ and may seem to

* We might illuetrate tli«ae remarJtB by fti^kiog, Wh^i wms the
mediaeTmi uonoeptioti of Alexacder or of ^ U baono Anguntu ^ I They
were Tivid enciugb^ but esseritiftUy unhiBtoricail. The »bfieiioe of
u real historic setiae in the tuedmeviJ miud ia ahown in most of the
early attempts to coademse (miTejuai history .

144 Studies in John the Scot

modern thinkers to be deficient. He nowhere
inquires after a criterion to dietinguish right action
from wrong. He certainly would not regard any
consequencee of actionB as affording such a criterion.
And he has not much to say about a supreme
moral law. His morality is one of ideals rather
than of lawB. He recognizes an art of practical
wisdom, by which ^ices may be eradicated and
supplanted by virtues ^ He follows Maximiis in
saying that the contemplation of virtue actually
turns the soul into that which it contemplates^.
And, as we have seen^ he regards the growth of
virtues as the incarnation of the divine word
within the soul ^. In so far as he has a theory, it
seems to be that virtues increase in the soul through
peipetual attention to that which is recognized as
good and neglect of what is superficially attractive.
This theory, of course, implies the superiority of
the contemplative life over every other.

And it is as a man of contemplation, not a
dreamer, but a thinker, that John the Scot most
chiefly commands our respect and attracts our
sympathy* We are, perhaps, ready to acknow-
ledge the merits of the contemplative character
when we can see that by the influence of man on
man contemplation often results in action. But
we do not always fully realize that the man who
thinks, and does nothing but think, is a benefactor
to his race, in that he is a standing witness to the

^ Bt Biff. NaL lii. 29. ^ Ibid, i. 9. ' Ibid, iii, ^^

The Influence of Scotus

superiority of the spiritual over the material. John,
of course, not only thought, but wrote. Yet if he
had never written a line his work might have been
aa profitable as that of Hincmar, with all that
great prelate's efforts to reorganize anarchic
societies and bring the moraJ law to bear in high
places. Little aa we know about Scotus, we can
fi.'ame a picture of him which it is well to look at
from time to time. He possessed the enei-gy of
mind to think out a spiritual theory of the universe
in a grossly materialistic age; earnest in his
pursuit of truth, he made no impatient efforts to
force the human reason to tasks that were beyond
its capacity ; fearless and sceptical in his inquiries
(though cautious at times in announcing their
result^)^ yet capable of ardent belief in a spiritual
world that lay beyond all possible investigation,
he stands before us a devout agnostic, an eclectic
philosopher, a recipient of the influences of the
past, who in many ways anticipated the most
fruitful ideas of the present age. The world has
wondered at him, condemned him, forgotten him.
Yet possibly the world is better for the fact that
he and a few men of his stamp have lived and
thought apart from the main stream of human
progress. For these isolated thinkers have helped
by the travail of their souls, and by the sacrifice
of all lesser joys, to keep before men's minds these
etemal ideas, in the light of which alone any real
progress can be achieved.

oxford: HORACE HART
niNTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

the borrower will be charged
an overdue fee if this book is not
retOrned to the library on or

BEFORE the LAST DATE STAMPED
below. NON-aECEIPT OF OVERDUE
NOTITES DOES NOT EXEMPT THE
BQMaWER FROM OVERDUE FEES

)f0'i

^ M #J#» #^ ^

1 c^r. ---^.l

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Studies in John the Scot (Erigena): A Philosopher of the Dark Ages"

See other formats